On 10/4/07, Corey Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So having your pages rebuild on every load is better than having them > rebuild once when they change and then stay in cache on the filesystem > (which will of course be cached by the OS in RAM)? I'm not seeing why > that's a bad idea.
I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file, which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads? -- Robert Merrill www.utahtechjobs.com /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
