Re: RE: yet another template

Disclaimer, just in case: the Smarty code I last read was 1.4.2, if you've changed this stuff since then, disregard everything I say :-) The point is that the {insert} runtime processing code reads the cache file into memory and does string manipulation. If Smarty simply processed these cache files with "include", it'd benefit from ZendCache (which stores byte-compiled scripts in shared memory). - Stig Monte Ohrt wrote: > > Hi Stig, > > I don't see how making the cached pages into PHP code would help with > performance, it would actually add an unnecessary step. The cached pages are the > HTML output of the page, they are not compiled or interpreted by PHP. They go > straight to the browser (minus a few exceptional cases like where insert tags > are replaced first.) Now one thing you _could_ do to gain a little performance > is to keep the cached content in a RAM disk to speed up I/O. For now you can do > that at the OS level (like using /tmp in Solaris), and I'm also working on cache > handling via custom functions in Smarty, which will be in the next release. This > way you could use something like msession so cached data (& session data) can be > compressed and stored on a RAM session server, and therefore can be retrieved > efficiently and shared in a cluster. > > Monte > > "Stig S. Bakken" wrote: > > > Andrei Zmievski wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 07 Nov 2001, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > > > Another "personal requirement" I have is that for example Zend Cache > > > > should give a performance gain for templates, basically by compiling > > > > templates to PHP code whose bytecode can be cached. None of the systems > > > > above currently fulfill this requirement completely, although Smarty is > > > > close. > > > > > > What do you mean with that last sentence? > > > > Smarty's cached templates are not pure PHP code. If they were, > > Zend(Cache|Accelerator) would give another level of performance gain. > > > > - Stig