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

Computer Guru computerguru at neosmart.net
Tue Apr 17 16:01:41 GMT 2007

With regards to loading all of WP:
I believe this was a project in the GSoC thing... To make WP "modular," so
to speak, loading only components that need to be loaded.

Computer Guru
NeoSmart Technologies

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wp-hackers-bounces at lists.automattic.com [mailto:wp-hackers-
> bounces at lists.automattic.com] On Behalf Of David Chait
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:49 PM
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] should (can?) wp-cache be adopted into the
> core?
> I didn't ever specifically say 'in its current state'. ;)  Change it,
> tweak it, fix it, rewrite it.  But don't lose 'page caching' as an
> option.
> Yes, there are problems with full-page caching.  First and foremost is
> that dynamic pieces have to be executed either as a pass-through loader
> (i.e., tagged as a jpg/png but actually a php file), or have to be via
> client-side methods (JS/ajax/whatever).  Secondly is when to invalidate
> the caching.  I didn't lose 10 minutes reading your spec, but a quick
> glance of it certainly looks interesting.  (Andy, I'm removing the end
> of your orig post just for length here... ;) ).
> To other statements, not just andy:
> I agree that moving wp-cache so it uses the object cache mechanism for
> storage might be useful for those cases where you have APC/memcached.
> HOWEVER, the importance of wp-cache is that it works WITHOUT those
> object-cache mechanisms, on shared hosts where they're not (generally)
> available.  AND, that the object-cache approach basically fails on
> shared hosting (again, in the old days it actually hurt performance if
> your host had well-configured mysql servers, especially if they were
> separate from the apache boxes -- don't know how it performs today).
> I agree it should work across to IIS, that fixes are (apparently)
> needed.  However, reminder that wp-cache is the child of Staticize, so
> hopefully whatever problems are there might be easier to solve for the
> core team.
> I don't like an approach that requires loading the entirety of WP in
> order to display a page.  The whole POINT of wp-cache/staticize was to
> NOT LOAD WP core, just short-circuit and dump out the cached page.
> Yes, it 'breaks' dynamic stuff unless you use server/image-passthrough
> or client/JS approaches (OR, use the mfunc type thing from Staticize
> which has been rumored to have issues in recent wp-cache builds).  But,
> not all of us have dedi servers, let alone server farms, and running
> shared you need to trade off something for performance.  I learned long
> ago that surviving a slashdot was more important than a sidebar thing
> that changes if you refresh the page.  The basic blogger who wants
> purely dynamic, wacky, elements won't generally have traffic to worry
> about.  The heavy blogger probably has VPS or dedi and can put the
> object cache, with APC/memcached, plus generally use a PHP bytecode
> cache.  The midrange folks, without wp-cache, will quickly be
> 'stranded', without performance tools to tune for reasonable volume on
> shared environments (which, again, can't usually, usefully, take
> advantage of the object cache or bytecode caching approaches).
> Just imho. ;)
> -d
> Andy Skelton wrote:
> > On 4/16/07, David Chait <davebytes at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 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.. ;)
> >
> > I would not like to see WP-Cache bundled with core in its current
> > state. The object cache has come a long way. The object cache is not
> a
> > substitute for WP-Cache, nor vice versa, but they are ignorant of
> each
> > other when they should be cooperating or even fusing.
> >
> > What I want is for WP to have an object cache that is strong enough
> > that rendered pages could be cached, retrieved, optionally mixed with
> > dynamic content, served and appropriately invalidated using whatever
> > object cache client suits the setup.
> >
> > In order to be compatible with full-page caching, all code (including
> > themes, plugins, widgets, mods) must comply with several principles
> of
> > caching that just haven't been codified yet. So those standards would
> > have to be written and followed.
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list