Re: [SMARTY-DEV] Once again: Solution for {nocache} blockfunction?!

> The other lingering thing is cache information. Currently that is stored > as a serialized string at the top of the cache file. Should this be > imbedded as a PHP array value, or a separate file, or? Good question. I tend to use exactly the same compiler both times of compiling. During the first step it simply ignores some tags (like described earlier). The second step just uses other tag delimiter ({SMARTY_PRECOMPILE_TAG and SMARTY_PRECOMPILE_TAG} for example). Displaying the template goes the same way it goes now. So I vote for adding only an array at the top of the document. This way you don't need to parse the cached file again to retrieve cache informations. Just include it. But if you say including could be alot slower than just parsing then better use a serialized string. André "Monte Ohrt" <monte@ispi.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1045670461.28264.38.camel@lena.ispi.prv... > This is a good idea, it is more of a matter of semantics than it is > something different. > > The other lingering thing is cache information. Currently that is stored > as a serialized string at the top of the cache file. Should this be > imbedded as a PHP array value, or a separate file, or? > > Monte > > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 09:46, André Rabold wrote: > > Hi Monte > > > > > {SMARTY_PRECOMPILE_TAG cacheme foo="blah" SMARTY_PRECOMPILE_TAG} > > > {include file="foo.tpl"} > > > > > > Sure something like this is needed. Just wanted to keep my examples simple > > ;-) > > > > > I don't see how your method is any different than mine... except calling > > > "precompiled/compiled" vs. "compiled/cached" > > > > > > The difference is only small. But as far as I have understood you just > > include (I mean the > > PHP function) the compiled file. > > Then the complete output is stored in the .cache file. This .cache file is > > finally displayed. > > > > I have just extended this functionality so the .tpl still contains Smarty > > tags and > > gets compiled again instead of just included. (This is why I called it > > precompiled in my > > examples to show there's a difference between normal .tpl files). The > > resulting file is > > the .tpl after all. Include it (again the PHP function is meant) and the > > output is html > > with cached and non-cached parts. > > > > This is why I like this idea. It would be easier to implement than > > everything other I've heard > > or read about so far. Don't you think this could solve the non-cached blocks > > and > > functions problematic? > > > > Btw: I thought I post my ideas here not because I have a solution or an > > impression of what > > the result will be. I just thought about a way to _implement_ it. This is > > why I created > > the diagramm. (http://cmsng.sourceforge.net/TemplateCaching.png). It helped > > me to > > understand the problematic. I have created it for Smarty (not for any other > > system). > > Perhaps it's not a good idea but how would you implement your method? > > > > bye, > > André > > > > > > > > "Monte Ohrt" <monte@ispi.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > news:1045666228.28271.17.camel@lena.ispi.prv... > > > One problem I see is the syntax of the precompiled template tags, they > > > can get mixed up with output. > > > > > > example: > > > > > > index.tpl > > > --------- > > > > > > {echo text="this is a test"} > > > {cacheme foo="blah"} > > > {ldelim}include file="foo.tpl"{rdelim} > > > > > > index.ppl.php > > > ------------- > > > <?php echo "this is a test" ?> > > > {cacheme foo="blah"} > > > {include file="foo.tpl"} > > > > > > > > > oops, now that literal tag is going to get parsed, not good! > > > > > > That is why the Smarty md5 string is used in the current cache files, to > > > be sure the insert tags are not part of the output. > > > > > > Therefore, maybe the precompiled files should have tags like: > > > > > > index.ppl.php > > > ------------- > > > <?php echo "this is a test" ?> > > > {SMARTY_PRECOMPILE_TAG cacheme foo="blah" SMARTY_PRECOMPILE_TAG} > > > {include file="foo.tpl"} > > > > > > > > > I don't see how your method is any different than mine... except calling > > > "precompiled/compiled" vs. "compiled/cached" > > > > > > Monte > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 02:59, André Rabold wrote: > > > > Thanks for answering :-) > > > > > > > > > index.tpl.php > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > > > > <?php smarty_function_foo("blah"); ?> > > > > > <?php smarty_function_foobar("blah"); ?> > > > > > > > > > > There are some things to get through, such as how to recognize the > > > > > cached and non-cached elements of index.tpl.php, and how to handle > > > > > multiple templates included within each other in the cache files (if > > > > > there are several templates included in a non-cached block, do they > > > > > still all go in the same cache file?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the reason why I would prefer two compiling steps. The > > > > "index.tpl.cache.php" won't be needed for this "Advanced > > > > Caching > > > > Mechanism". The final outputted file is a normal .tpl.php file which > > > > will be included by Smarty to get executed. > > > > > > > > index.ppl.php <-- "p" stands for "pre" ;-) > > > > -------------- > > > > <?php smarty_function_foo("blah"); ?> > > > > {foobar bar="blah"} > > > > > > > > index.tpl.php > > > > ------------- > > > > This is output from function foo > > > > <?php smarty_function_foobar("blah"); ?> > > > > > > > > This should be easier to implement. To recognize if a Smarty tag should > > > > be cached I would prefer two ways: > > > > 1) Non-Cached functions > > > > - developer registers a function as non-cached > > > > - if compiler parses over a non-cached function just leave the tag > > > > alone. > > > > 2) Non-Cached variables > > > > - developer assigns a variable as non-cached to the template > > > > - if compiler parses over a function using a non-cached variable > > just > > > > leave the whole tag alone again. > > > > > > > > - {insert} should always be a non-cached function (current behaviour of > > > > Smarty) > > > > - {include} shouldn't be cached by default (otherwise it could lead in > > > > errors hard to track down). But the included template can use just > > the > > > > same mechanism as described above. So the included template is > > > > cached in it's own file. > > > > - I wouldn't use a {foo nocache=true} functionality because on the one > > > > hand this will be harder for the compiler to detect. On the other > > hand > > > > the designed shouldn't need to deside if the template should get > > > > cached or not. He can but he shouldn't need to :-) > > > > > > > > André > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Monte Ohrt" <monte@ispi.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > > > news:1045600811.23551.118.camel@lena.ispi.prv... > > > > > Yep, there are a few things that have been discussed. Here's another > > > > > similar one. > > > > > > > > > > We currently have three files: > > > > > > > > > > 1) the original template > > > > > 2) compiled template > > > > > 3) cached output of the template(s) > > > > > > > > > > #3 is a text file that is scanned for insert tags (if there are any). > > > > > Maybe this can change to a PHP script that is interpreted by PHP, and > > > > > imbed PHP tags where uncached data should be. So for example, some > > > > > pseudo-code... foo is cached, foobar is not: > > > > > > > > > > index.tpl > > > > > --------- > > > > > > > > > > {foo bar="blah"} > > > > > {foobar bar="blah"} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index.tpl.php > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > > > > > <?php smarty_function_foo("blah"); ?> > > > > > <?php smarty_function_foobar("blah"); ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index.tpl.cache.php > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > > > This is output from function foo > > > > > <?php smarty_function_foobar("blah"); ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some things to get through, such as how to recognize the > > > > > cached and non-cached elements of index.tpl.php, and how to handle > > > > > multiple templates included within each other in the cache files (if > > > > > there are several templates included in a non-cached block, do they > > > > > still all go in the same cache file?) > > > > > > > > > > Monte > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 04:34, André Rabold wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I just thought about how to implement a {nocache}{/nocache} block > > > > > > function and I had an idea ... This could also help for more > > advanced > > > > > > caching algorithms like caching of single functions or caching of > > > > variables. > > > > > > > > > > > > The caching could work the following way: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://cmsng.sourceforge.net/TemplateCaching.png > > > > > > > > > > > > - The blue path is the default behaviour of Smarty if caching is > > > > disabled. > > > > > > This works like in the current version. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's the difference between a not compiled template, a precompiled > > and > > > > > > a compiled one: > > > > > > (The foo function is cached. The bar function is not. How to > > distiguish > > > > if a > > > > > > function > > > > > > or variable or what ever should be cached or not is not part of this > > > > > > discussion ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- not compiled --- > > > > > > {foo blah="blub"} > > > > > > {bar blah="blub"} > > > > > > > > > > > > --- precompiled --- > > > > > > <?php echo $this->plugins["foo"] ... ?> > > > > > > {bar blah="blub"} > > > > > > > > > > > > --- compiled --- > > > > > > <?php echo $this->plugins["foo"] ... ?> > > > > > > <?php echo $this->plugins["bar"] ... ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > The trick is that we now have two compiled template types. The first > > > > > > (precompiled) one contains all the compiled syntax (PHP code) of > > Smarty > > > > > > functions that should be cached. But there are still some Smarty > > tags > > > > left > > > > > > in the code. This tags are called non-cached. > > > > > > If the cache is cleared Smarty executed this template. The result is > > > > another > > > > > > Template full of html code and still these non-cached Smarty tags. > > This > > > > > > template is called "pre-cached" because there is no php code left in > > the > > > > > > template but the non-cached Smarty tags. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second compilation step takes as input the pre-cached template > > > > instead > > > > > > of the completely non-compiled one. The output is a compiled > > template > > > > > > in which only the non-cached functions are php code. The cached ones > > are > > > > > > already there as html code. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now Smarty can just uses this second compiled template just like a > > > > normal > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > The advantage of this method is that you can use nearly all of your > > > > existing > > > > > > code without any rewrites. The compiler just needs a parameter if > > it's > > > > the > > > > > > first ("pre-compiled") or second ("compiled") > > > > > > compile step. And it > > needs > > > > to > > > > > > distinguish between cached and non-cached functions. If it's in > > first > > > > > > compile > > > > > > step and a non-cached function is detected just leave it alone - > > don't > > > > > > modify > > > > > > it yet. If the compiler is in the second step just compile > > everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > The disadvantage is a performance loss if a cached template needs to > > be > > > > > > rebuild: > > > > > > - first get the "pre-compiled" template and execute it > > > > > > - compile the recently executed template again and execute again > > > > > > - now output the content > > > > > > You need to compile the template again which is slow. But normally > > there > > > > > > shouldn't be a lot of Smarty tags left in the pre-compiled template. > > > > > > Otherwise > > > > > > caching wouldn't make a sense at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > André > > > > > -- > > > > > Monte Ohrt <monte@ispi.net> > > > > > > > > -- > > > Monte Ohrt <monte@ispi.net> > > > > -- > Monte Ohrt <monte@ispi.net> >