Re: [VOTE] Add is_cacheable() stream-wrapper operation

> On 3 Feb 2015, at 3:49 am, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote: > >> On 02/02/2015 08:38 AM, François Laupretre wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Opening the vote for : >> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/streams-is-cacheable >> >> This RFC proposes a generic way for opcode caches to decide if a given URI >> is cacheable or not. > > Doesn't this imply that "path" is the one true cache key? There are some > issues with that which we will have to address at some point. For > example, when running fpm chrooted you need more than the path. We'll > likely need a more APC-like option here to use the device+inode for the > key. It seems like a generic mechanism like you are proposing needs to > take this into account and provide some mechanism that tells the opcode > cache how to determine uniqueness. Perhaps that is simply encoded into > the path parameter, but then maybe it should have a more appropriate name. > > -Rasmus > > Don't we already have this problem with chrooted FPM? I haven't tested it more recently, but last time I tried, opcache would fail to invalidate the cache after updating the file. Worked fine with a non-chroot environment. Not sure if this is related to the issues you mean here...