RE: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ?

Thanks for the pointer on fastCache instead of Cache_Lite. I'll re-read the archives for it. " Cache_Lite (despite the name) isn't an optimized little version of Cache. It was completly redesigned from scratch to get big perfs. Moreover there are some features (like a big protection against cache corruption) which are not included into Cache. Because these features are only usefull for high traffic web sites. So, IMHO, a real merge isn't possible because goals are really different. " First, wouldn't Cache benfit from "protection against cache corruption"? If this feature is useful for a high traffic site, isn't it also useful to a low traffic site? I mean, such a feature might not be *required* by a low traffic site, but I don't think it would hurt a low traffic site. Second, what are the goals of Cache_Lite and Cache? I can't seem to find that in the docs for either. Thanks for helping me understand the differences. dave -----Original Message----- From: fabien.marty@free.fr [mailto:fabien.marty@free.fr] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:19 PM To: Dave Viner Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net Subject: RE: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ? > sorry, i can't seem to find the earlier discussion on > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&w=2&r=1&s=Cache_Lite&q=b > can you point me to it? Indeed, you have to make a search with fastCache and not Cache_Lite because it was the firt name proposal. > In the meanwhile, let me ask another question. If Cache_Lite provides > file based caching, and Cache provides file based caching, and Cache_Lite > is truly 4x faster, why not replace Cache's file based container with > Cache_Lite's container? Because, the file container of Cache_Lite isn't really faster than the Cache one. But as Cache_Lite is designed ONLY for a file container, this container is embeded in the Cache_Lite "kernel". So, you can get a really big jump of perfs. > I mean if including PEAR.php dynamically only when necessary is a good thing for Cache_Lite, isn't it a good thing for Cache as well? PEAR.php provides two big things : - error handling - destructor emulation The Cache class uses these two things and starts with : class Cache extends PEAR { So the Cache class has to include PEAR.php each time. Cache_Lite doesn't use destructors so it's possible to include dynamically PEAR.php only when an error is triggered. > I am relatively new to the PEAR world, but I am having trouble > understanding the arguments. Not a problem :-) > (In my mind, Cache_Lite provides a subset > of functionality provided by Cache. The implementation of that subset > apparently is better than the implementation provided in Cache. Why > not improve Cache and Cache_Lite by sharing the implementation?) Cache_Lite (despite the name) isn't an optimized little version of Cache. It was completly redesigned from scratch to get big perfs. Moreover there are some features (like a big protection against cache corruption) which are not included into Cache. Because these features are only usefull for high traffic web sites. So, IMHO, a real merge isn't possible because goals are really different. Fab > dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fabien MARTY [mailto:fabien.marty@free.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 2:00 PM > To: Jon Wood; dviner@yahoo-inc.com > Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] 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 > > > > >