RE: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ?

Sebastian, Christian, and Ulf, Can you comment on the goals of Cache? In particular as opposed to Cache_Lite? Do you see the same performance gains by using Cache_Lite's file container? Also, what does Cache provide in the way of "protection against cache corruption" as Cache_Lite does ? Fabien, Can you provide a benchmarking test case to help identify the speed differences between Cache and Cache_Lite? thanks dave -----Original Message----- From: Fabien MARTY [mailto:fabien.marty@free.fr] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:22 PM To: Dave Viner Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net Subject: RE: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ? > 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. You are right :-) But it would slow Cache a little more. I don't know Sebastian's or Christian's plan (Cache leaders) about this possibility. > Second, what are the goals of Cache_Lite and Cache? I can't seem to find > that in the docs for either. I will make a real doc for Cache_Lite when peardoc2 is become the official doc. Now, there is a big example file (docs/examples) describing the different possibilities of the class. IMHO, goals are : - Cache_Lite : fast, light and safe (Cache_Lite is really fast, the core class is light and can be embedded in bigger projects and last but not least, Cache_Lite is really safe because completly protected against cache corruption) - Cache : features, flexibility (Cache has more features, and can be used with a file container, a DB container. Moreover, it has an automatic garbage collector...) Fab