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

On 02/02/2015 07:35 PM, David Muir wrote: > > >> 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... Yes, like I said, this is an issue we have to address still. It is on the TODO list and definitely looking for volunteers. I just wanted to make sure that Francois' RFC didn't introduce something which would make it harder to eventually fix this by not allowing for a non-path cache key. -Rasmus

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc