Re: Cache_Lite 1.0 ?

You choose what features you need... if you just need basic file system based caching, then you go for cache_lite - if you need more features, then use cache. Although it's a valid comment - could we merge the two so that they're backend drivers for one cache implementation, or are the APIs signifigantly different... I havn't used them before. Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Viner" <dviner@yahoo-inc.com> To: "Fabien MARTY" <fabien.marty@free.fr>; <pear-dev@lists.php.net> Cc: <pear-general@lists.php.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:36 PM Subject: RE: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ? > So now there are (or will be) two Cache implementations, Cache_Lite and > Cache. How do I choose between them ? > > dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fabien MARTY [mailto:fabien.marty@free.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 4:09 AM > To: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Cc: pear-general@lists.php.net > Subject: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ? > > > Hello, > > Now, there is some real tests of Cache_Lite on high traffic sites. And, > as it seems that there is no problem, I plan to release the 1.0 stable > release of Cache_Lite (with no real change) the next week. > > If someone noticed problems or bugs with the last Cache_Lite release > (0.4 beta, 28/09/2002), I would be very happy about his feedback ! :-) > > Thanks ! > > Fab > > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >