I don't see any. It's "good enough" for most cases, I believe. The unmentioned alternative, of course, is memcached. It would take minimal changes to the code, probably a single line in environment.rb , since ResponseCache piggy-backs on the Rails caching mechanism. However, not everyone could run memcached.
Actually, ResponseCache doesn't piggy-back on the rails caching mechanism - at least not in the sense where it would be simple to swap in one of the other rails caching backends. However, I think this might actually be the reason why ResponseCache manages to perform so well - all the abstraction in the rails caching creates a big performance hit. Writing an extension that uses memcache rather than the filesystem would require replacing the entire ResponseCache class. Dan.
_______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: Radiant@lists.radiantcms.org Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant