I've checked this in as Revision 333105 on the trunk. Dave, Allen:
please review. Thanks.
Allen Gilliland wrote:
This would definitely be helpful to me since I am doing the caching
rewrite for Roller 2.1. I had noticed that we didn't invalidate all
necessary objects and I've been adding them in as I go. My guess is
that we haven't noticed this because our default cache implementation
uses 60 minute timeouts, which really shouldn't be needed. I have
included a new non-expiring caching implementation for Roller 2.1
which I think would be a better choice for the default cache, but
obviously we need to make sure we properly invalidate objects before
we use it.
-- Allen
Anil Gangolli wrote:
OK. I have fixes for the bookmark/folder/referrer lack of
invalidation bugs in my workspace. I'll check them in if there are
no objections, and if someone promises to review them. That's not
saying there aren't more missing invalidations, and I'm inclined to
support retaining the maintenance page. As a side note, it also lets
you force a rebuild of the search index.
--a.
Anil Gangolli wrote:
Just confirmed we still have the bookmark change / no cache
invalidation bug anyway.
Anil Gangolli wrote:
Agree that it should be redundant, but I should say I have needed
to use it in the past. I think the particular bug I was hitting
was that after changing bookmarks or removing referrers (can't
remember which, may have been both), I used to have to clear the
cache to make the change appear. Haven't done this recently (just
haven't changed those; rarely add a bookmark, and I no longer
display referrers), and I know the cache code has changed somewhat
in recent versions so it may have been fixed too. I'll try testing
for it.
It is really just a CYA measure for bugs where we somewhere forget
to invalidate the cache, but we may have users that were working
around something like me (shame on me) rather than reporting it (or
in my case, hunting it down).
--a.
Dave Johnson wrote:
I'm not sure this worth the effort to add back in. Users should
not need to flush the cache. If they do, we have a bug. - Dave
On Nov 12, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
Along these same lines, I had noticed that the user maintenance
page went missing in 2.0 as well. I wasn't sure if this was on
purpose, but it is nice to have an easy way for users to clear
their cache if they need to.
-- Allen
