RE: [PEAR-DEV] Cache_Lite 1.0 ?

On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 23:21, Fabien MARTY wrote: > > 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. > [..] > 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...) > I don't have to append anything else to this list. And filelocking is somehow better than before, isn't it? If just see this log-entry: Mon Oct 21 13:10:18 2002 (2 weeks, 3 days ago) adding fileLocking to file's constuctor. this allows users to use file locking in the file container without modifying the original php code.--dviner But I never tested it. chregu