The memcached plugin uses pecl/memcached which has what I believe to be some useful features compared to pecl/memcache, one of which is support for the binary protocol. Such support could be very beneficial for large sites (such as SN network) because it reduces CPU time spent and bandwidth used by memcache. So, from a features POV, memcached is the better plugin. But, more distros package memcache than memcached (Ubuntu added "d" only in Lucid). So, I think having both is the best solution for now, until more users have memcached available in distros. Also, lib/default.php will auto-select whichever one is available assuming config.php is using the old (non addPlugin) style memcache configuration. So, users don't need to be aware that the 2 plugins even exist. So yes, I think both plugins should stay, at least for a little while. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Prodromou <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:59:29 To: [email protected]<[email protected]>; Craig Andrews<[email protected]> Subject: MemcachePlugin & MemcachedPlugin Unless there's a good reason I don't see, I /really/ don't want to have two memcache plugins in our core distribution. I could be convinced otherwise, but the only result I see in having two plugins is giving users a confusing false choice. "Which one should I use?" "Either, they're both about the same." "So, which one should I use?" Nobody should have to spend any mental cycles on this, as far as I can tell. We shouldn't have to spend group developer time maintaining two identical plugins, and we shouldn't have to confuse our downstream users. Craig, if you think it's really important to have this other one available, I suggest you maintain it outside of our core set of plugins. -Evan -- Evan Prodromou CEO, StatusNet, Inc. [email protected] - http://evan.status.net/ - +1-438-380-4801
_______________________________________________ StatusNet-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.status.net/mailman/listinfo/statusnet-dev
