Plüm wrote:
That seems to be an important point to me. Although I never used
the fd caching of mod_mem_cache this would mean we actually would
have to dump this feature. This looks bad to me. Isn't this
a showstopper
for implementing #3 as new interface?
Honestly, mod_mem_cache is a complete joke. It's never worked
I am not quite sure if Bill (not other Bill) shares this point of view :-).
Regards
Rüdiger
Yikes, I've been out'ed :-)
Parts of mod_mem_cache, especially the reference counting and fd cache
stuff I wrote, are exceptionally elegant ;-). But seriously,
mod_mem_cache was not a bad first effort, but it is ready for a
rewrite. I was never happy dealing with bucket brigades in the cache, a
real pita, so option #3 looks interesting. Probably possible to use
option #3 and extend it as a special case for caching fds.
Bill
