Re: Cache_Lite 1.0 ?

Le mar 05/11/2002 à 22:40, Jon Wood a écrit : > 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. I will add that Cache_Lite is 4 times faster than Cache (bench on my computer only). And it's completly protected against cache corruption (writing and reading at the same time). So it's designed for high traffic site (tested successfully with two web sites of 600000 pages a day). On the other hand, it's less flexible than Cache (Cache_Lite use only file container) and it's true that there is less features. So you have a choice. > 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. The API is not really different. But a merge is not possible because Cache_Lite use ONLY a file container (for speed). Moreover, PEAR.php is included dynamically (include_once) only when an error is detected. So in the most of cases, PEAR.php isn't included (which allow a big jump of perfs). So there is a choice. BTW it has been already discussed on this list :-) Fab