grr, this cold is making me dumber than usual. the link: http://code.google.com/p/modmemcachecache/
On Feb 6, 2008 1:25 PM, josh rotenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if it helps at all, here was my attempt at a working > mod_memcached_cache. i've been meaning to look at it again and do some > cleanup/testing/benchmarking/etc, haven't had the chance though. > > > > > On Feb 5, 2008 11:17 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 5, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote: > > >> On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly > > >>> quite > > >>> different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ? > > >>> E.g. the cache_object_t * is populated with the status/date/etc data > > >>> in memcache - but not in disk-cache. Is this work in progress or > > >>> subtle design ? > > >>> > > >>> I am trying to understand (got a working mod_memcached_cache.c* -- > > >>> and cannot quite get the right VARY behaviour). > > >> > > >> If I had to guess I'd say it's because people have actually been > > >> working on disk cache, while mem cache has been largely ignored for a > > >> while. > > > > > > Definitely! I remember the original patches tried to create some nice > > > abstractions so that more logic would move into mod_cache propery than > > > in mod_*_cache, but there turned out to be so many corner cases within > > > mod_disk_cache itself - and noone seems to /use/ mod_mem_cache - that > > > that fell by the wayside :/ > > > > Thanks ! That is useful info -- so for now I'll focus on > > mod_disk_cache -- and once I got that mapped to mod_memcached -- will > > then see if we can abstract that into a cleaner mod_memcache. But > > first priority is getting it clean-ish/same-ish relative to the ssl > > use of memcached (my usecase is OpenID -- which is 'heavy' on both). > > > > Dw > > >
