-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/2011 07:02 AM, Jim Dalton wrote: > 1. Fixing #9249 and #15855. I hear your philosophical concerns about > #9249 but the ubiquity of Google Analytics means we must do fine some > way to fix it (IMO). Addressing these two tickets would at least > ensure page caching wasn't actually broken. I'll try to jump in on > those if I have time later next week. #9249 in particular seems quite > close. > > 2. Clarifying the documentation. I think an admonition in the page > caching section of the docs which outlined the present challenges a > developer might face implementing it would probably have done the > trick for me when I was first glancing at it. I can open a ticket on > that next week, again if I have time. > > It'd be great if these two got in for 1.4.
Agreed - any work you're able to put in on any of these is very welcome. > 3. Addressing the other stuff is I guess for now a sort of "some day" > goal. I continue to feel strongly that it's a worthy goal, > particularly given that CSRF and contrib.auth are such fundamental > parts of most projects and that they really are the only two things > that stand in the way of page caching being a viable option in many > projects. If anyone else gets inspired by this goal let me know, > otherwise I'm content for the time being to let it stew. I take your point that it might be possible to do a cache-tweaking API that could allow the cache to be more aggressive around auth and CSRF with less coupling (though you'd still end up sprinkling cache-specific stuff into auth and CSRF with your approach). I remain pretty skeptical about whether this is a good idea; it seems like it could significantly increase the surface area for bugs in the cache middleware implementation, and just generally make the implementation harder to maintain with correct behavior. (I have some painful experience in this area: CACHE_MIDDLEWARE_ANONYMOUS_ONLY is the one existing, and relatively simple, instance of the type of enhanced caching logic you're talking about, and I made some fixes to it in the 1.3 cycle that I then later had to fix again due to unanticipated side effects of the first change). But at this point this is all kind of hand-waving without code to look at. You might also consider what's possible to do outside of core as a third-party alternative to Django's caching middleware. When you're proposing major and somewhat experimental changes, that can be a powerful way to demonstrate that the idea is workable, and makes it a lot easier to pick up users and advocates; people are generally more willing to try out a third-party tool than to run or test with a patched Django. Carl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6hvEkACgkQ8W4rlRKtE2edBACfdsW7IHoDKBrpwzwGGMx+ww5g U+AAoLZLn1CA6c1644kzsnZRZ6xaW60B =QBjT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
