[wp-hackers] should (can?) wp-cache be adopted into the core?

[Boris Anthony]

+1
;)
(starting to feel bad I don't have the time to actually help with any  
of this.. maybe i should shaddap :\

B.


On 16-Apr-07, at 10:57 PM, David Chait wrote:

> there's been on-and-off issues with it, and while I applaud Ricardo  
> on his time and effort taking Staticize Reloaded and bringing it  
> forward into the new generation of WP, he's admitted to be  
> overloaded and unable to keep it up to date and I think was asking  
> for someone to take it over.  I'd claim that wp-cache is one of the  
> most critical plugins out there for anyone with even a moderate  
> level of traffic, and that having it not being properly attended  
> to, updated, heck even improved, is going to become a 'critical  
> issue' to many folks out there.  And I think it needs to be closer  
> to the action.
>
> Opinions?  Matt?  (since I think staticize was your baby  
> originally, no?)
>
> Any reasons it shouldn't be in the core (even if it's kept as a  
> plugin...), while the object-caching approach IS?  Note that object  
> caching has, in the past, shown to be detrimental to performance on  
> the average shared hosting setup -- though on dedi setups, with APC  
> or memcached and/or php bytecode caching, I could imagine setups  
> where the object cache could beat out the wp-cache 'php page'  
> caching system.  I run on shared for cost+stability management, I'd  
> run on a VPS if my site really took off again.. ;)
>
> Just with all the discussion of things like tagging systems, adding  
> new features, it seems that the management of staticize/wp-cache is  
> really important to the community as an 'old feature' (in a sense),  
> that aside from antispam stuff is one of the first recommended  
> things to install for a successful site.
>
> Musing,
>
> -d
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers