You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM> on 2005/11/05 01:21:55 UTC
removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
guys,
I wanted to present this idea and see what everyone's opinions are. I am working to design some improvements in our caching system and one of my current hangups is the fact that we render weblog pages differently when a user is logged in. Why does that matter?
Well, if a weblog has 100 entries then we know for sure that there are at least 101 unique pages for that weblog. 100 permalinks + 1 main page. Since currently we render the page differently if the weblog owner is logged in, then that means we now know there are at least 202 unique pages for that weblog. Ok, so what? Well, if you are a large site like jRoller or blogs.sun.com with say 2000 bloggers then the difference is now between 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages.
The difference between caching 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages is quite a lot.
Now, if there was a very good reason to maintain those extra 202,000 pages then I would be all for it, but my feeling is that there is only a marginally good reason for doing this. The *only* person who benefits from the pages with "edit" links is the weblog owner. That means we would be caching 101 extra pages per weblog (double the normal amount), just to benefit a single person. This seems silly when the user could just as easily login to the editing interface and accomplish the same things.
Personally, I don't login and go to my own weblog page to use those "edit" links, so I would prefer to ditch them and know that my cache now has twice as much room as it did before.
We could try doing something fancy like caching only parts of pages, but that is currently made difficult by the fact that weblogs are fully rendered by velocity templates and so we don't have much opportunity to implant caching hooks where we really want to.
I haven't worked with too many other blogging apps, but my guess is that very few of them have that same feature which offers "edit" links right on your weblog. e.g., any site the does static page generation would be out.
It's possible that we could make this a configurable feature which would be on by default. That way large sites could disable it if they want, but we wouldn't be taking it away from everyone.
Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone.
-- Allen
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by "Matthew P. Schmidt" <ma...@javalobby.org>.
Right, but is the system admin automatically the owner of all weblogs?
-Matt
Allen Gilliland wrote:
> Well, you're in luck. Roller 2.0 does allow admins to work on any
> weblog as if they were the owner of that weblog :)
>
> -- Allen
>
> Matthew P. Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Well, one thing that we've wanted at JRoller is the ability for a
>> super-admin of the system to be able to edit any blog entry. This is
>> useful for JRoller because we may want to correct some poor spelling,
>> remove an offending blog entry, or change a category. The user
>> itself is only logged in for a short time in the current system
>> design, so I doubt that not caching the page when the user is logged
>> in would hurt that much.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> Lance Lavandowska wrote:
>>
>>> I like to use the Edit links (well, I did while my blog was
>>> running). Perhaps the answer is to just *not cache* the user's own
>>> page when she
>>> is logged in?
>>>
>>> Lance
>>>
>>> On 11/4/05, Allen Gilliland <Al...@sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> guys,
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to present this idea and see what everyone's opinions
>>>> are. I am working to design some improvements in our caching
>>>> system and one of my current hangups is the fact that we render
>>>> weblog pages differently when a user is logged in. Why does that
>>>> matter?
>>>>
>>>> Well, if a weblog has 100 entries then we know for sure that there
>>>> are at least 101 unique pages for that weblog. 100 permalinks + 1
>>>> main page. Since currently we render the page differently if the
>>>> weblog owner is logged in, then that means we now know there are at
>>>> least 202 unique pages for that weblog. Ok, so what? Well, if you
>>>> are a large site like jRoller or blogs.sun.com with say 2000
>>>> bloggers then the difference is now between 202,000 pages and
>>>> 404,000 pages.
>>>>
>>>> The difference between caching 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages is
>>>> quite a lot.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if there was a very good reason to maintain those extra
>>>> 202,000 pages then I would be all for it, but my feeling is that
>>>> there is only a marginally good reason for doing this. The *only*
>>>> person who benefits from the pages with "edit" links is the weblog
>>>> owner. That means we would be caching 101 extra pages per weblog
>>>> (double the normal amount), just to benefit a single person. This
>>>> seems silly when the user could just as easily login to the editing
>>>> interface and accomplish the same things.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't login and go to my own weblog page to use those
>>>> "edit" links, so I would prefer to ditch them and know that my
>>>> cache now has twice as much room as it did before.
>>>>
>>>> We could try doing something fancy like caching only parts of
>>>> pages, but that is currently made difficult by the fact that
>>>> weblogs are fully rendered by velocity templates and so we don't
>>>> have much opportunity to implant caching hooks where we really want
>>>> to.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't worked with too many other blogging apps, but my guess is
>>>> that very few of them have that same feature which offers "edit"
>>>> links right on your weblog. e.g., any site the does static page
>>>> generation would be out.
>>>>
>>>> It's possible that we could make this a configurable feature which
>>>> would be on by default. That way large sites could disable it if
>>>> they want, but we wouldn't be taking it away from everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really
>>>> like/use those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they
>>>> are logged in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if
>>>> they were gone.
>>>>
>>>> -- Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
Well, you're in luck. Roller 2.0 does allow admins to work on any
weblog as if they were the owner of that weblog :)
-- Allen
Matthew P. Schmidt wrote:
> Well, one thing that we've wanted at JRoller is the ability for a
> super-admin of the system to be able to edit any blog entry. This is
> useful for JRoller because we may want to correct some poor spelling,
> remove an offending blog entry, or change a category. The user itself
> is only logged in for a short time in the current system design, so I
> doubt that not caching the page when the user is logged in would hurt
> that much.
>
> -Matt
>
> Lance Lavandowska wrote:
>
>> I like to use the Edit links (well, I did while my blog was running).
>> Perhaps the answer is to just *not cache* the user's own page when she
>> is logged in?
>>
>> Lance
>>
>> On 11/4/05, Allen Gilliland <Al...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> guys,
>>>
>>> I wanted to present this idea and see what everyone's opinions are.
>>> I am working to design some improvements in our caching system and
>>> one of my current hangups is the fact that we render weblog pages
>>> differently when a user is logged in. Why does that matter?
>>>
>>> Well, if a weblog has 100 entries then we know for sure that there
>>> are at least 101 unique pages for that weblog. 100 permalinks + 1
>>> main page. Since currently we render the page differently if the
>>> weblog owner is logged in, then that means we now know there are at
>>> least 202 unique pages for that weblog. Ok, so what? Well, if you
>>> are a large site like jRoller or blogs.sun.com with say 2000
>>> bloggers then the difference is now between 202,000 pages and
>>> 404,000 pages.
>>>
>>> The difference between caching 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages is
>>> quite a lot.
>>>
>>> Now, if there was a very good reason to maintain those extra 202,000
>>> pages then I would be all for it, but my feeling is that there is
>>> only a marginally good reason for doing this. The *only* person who
>>> benefits from the pages with "edit" links is the weblog owner. That
>>> means we would be caching 101 extra pages per weblog (double the
>>> normal amount), just to benefit a single person. This seems silly
>>> when the user could just as easily login to the editing interface
>>> and accomplish the same things.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't login and go to my own weblog page to use those
>>> "edit" links, so I would prefer to ditch them and know that my cache
>>> now has twice as much room as it did before.
>>>
>>> We could try doing something fancy like caching only parts of pages,
>>> but that is currently made difficult by the fact that weblogs are
>>> fully rendered by velocity templates and so we don't have much
>>> opportunity to implant caching hooks where we really want to.
>>>
>>> I haven't worked with too many other blogging apps, but my guess is
>>> that very few of them have that same feature which offers "edit"
>>> links right on your weblog. e.g., any site the does static page
>>> generation would be out.
>>>
>>> It's possible that we could make this a configurable feature which
>>> would be on by default. That way large sites could disable it if
>>> they want, but we wouldn't be taking it away from everyone.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really
>>> like/use those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they
>>> are logged in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if
>>> they were gone.
>>>
>>> -- Allen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by "Matthew P. Schmidt" <ma...@javalobby.org>.
Well, one thing that we've wanted at JRoller is the ability for a
super-admin of the system to be able to edit any blog entry. This is
useful for JRoller because we may want to correct some poor spelling,
remove an offending blog entry, or change a category. The user itself
is only logged in for a short time in the current system design, so I
doubt that not caching the page when the user is logged in would hurt
that much.
-Matt
Lance Lavandowska wrote:
>I like to use the Edit links (well, I did while my blog was running).
>Perhaps the answer is to just *not cache* the user's own page when she
>is logged in?
>
>Lance
>
>On 11/4/05, Allen Gilliland <Al...@sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>>guys,
>>
>>I wanted to present this idea and see what everyone's opinions are. I am working to design some improvements in our caching system and one of my current hangups is the fact that we render weblog pages differently when a user is logged in. Why does that matter?
>>
>>Well, if a weblog has 100 entries then we know for sure that there are at least 101 unique pages for that weblog. 100 permalinks + 1 main page. Since currently we render the page differently if the weblog owner is logged in, then that means we now know there are at least 202 unique pages for that weblog. Ok, so what? Well, if you are a large site like jRoller or blogs.sun.com with say 2000 bloggers then the difference is now between 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages.
>>
>>The difference between caching 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages is quite a lot.
>>
>>Now, if there was a very good reason to maintain those extra 202,000 pages then I would be all for it, but my feeling is that there is only a marginally good reason for doing this. The *only* person who benefits from the pages with "edit" links is the weblog owner. That means we would be caching 101 extra pages per weblog (double the normal amount), just to benefit a single person. This seems silly when the user could just as easily login to the editing interface and accomplish the same things.
>>
>>Personally, I don't login and go to my own weblog page to use those "edit" links, so I would prefer to ditch them and know that my cache now has twice as much room as it did before.
>>
>>We could try doing something fancy like caching only parts of pages, but that is currently made difficult by the fact that weblogs are fully rendered by velocity templates and so we don't have much opportunity to implant caching hooks where we really want to.
>>
>>I haven't worked with too many other blogging apps, but my guess is that very few of them have that same feature which offers "edit" links right on your weblog. e.g., any site the does static page generation would be out.
>>
>>It's possible that we could make this a configurable feature which would be on by default. That way large sites could disable it if they want, but we wouldn't be taking it away from everyone.
>>
>>Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone.
>>
>>-- Allen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by Lance Lavandowska <la...@gmail.com>.
I like to use the Edit links (well, I did while my blog was running).
Perhaps the answer is to just *not cache* the user's own page when she
is logged in?
Lance
On 11/4/05, Allen Gilliland <Al...@sun.com> wrote:
> guys,
>
> I wanted to present this idea and see what everyone's opinions are. I am working to design some improvements in our caching system and one of my current hangups is the fact that we render weblog pages differently when a user is logged in. Why does that matter?
>
> Well, if a weblog has 100 entries then we know for sure that there are at least 101 unique pages for that weblog. 100 permalinks + 1 main page. Since currently we render the page differently if the weblog owner is logged in, then that means we now know there are at least 202 unique pages for that weblog. Ok, so what? Well, if you are a large site like jRoller or blogs.sun.com with say 2000 bloggers then the difference is now between 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages.
>
> The difference between caching 202,000 pages and 404,000 pages is quite a lot.
>
> Now, if there was a very good reason to maintain those extra 202,000 pages then I would be all for it, but my feeling is that there is only a marginally good reason for doing this. The *only* person who benefits from the pages with "edit" links is the weblog owner. That means we would be caching 101 extra pages per weblog (double the normal amount), just to benefit a single person. This seems silly when the user could just as easily login to the editing interface and accomplish the same things.
>
> Personally, I don't login and go to my own weblog page to use those "edit" links, so I would prefer to ditch them and know that my cache now has twice as much room as it did before.
>
> We could try doing something fancy like caching only parts of pages, but that is currently made difficult by the fact that weblogs are fully rendered by velocity templates and so we don't have much opportunity to implant caching hooks where we really want to.
>
> I haven't worked with too many other blogging apps, but my guess is that very few of them have that same feature which offers "edit" links right on your weblog. e.g., any site the does static page generation would be out.
>
> It's possible that we could make this a configurable feature which would be on by default. That way large sites could disable it if they want, but we wouldn't be taking it away from everyone.
>
> Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone.
>
> -- Allen
>
>
>
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:27, Dave Johnson wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use
> > those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged
> > in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone.
>
> I really like the edit links on the page and the especially the
> editor-menu which appears when I'm logged in. I'd hate to lose that
> feature and I don't think it's hard to have a special cache for
> logged-in user pages (since we do that now) or just leave them out of
> the cache.
we don't actually have a special cache for logged-in user pages, but we
be able to set things up to leave them out of the cache.
>
> I don' think logged-in-user-pages filling up the cache is that big of
> an issue at all. They only get cache if the user browses his own blog,
> generally users don't do that very often and when then do they don't
> generally visit every page. So, they don't double the cache as you
> suggest.
true, i suppose the example was a bit overdramatic, but it still
applies. as the number of bloggers on a site grows, the number of
logged-in user pages in the cache will grow. That utilizes valuable
cache space for pages which will likely get very few hits.
>
> I do think there are things we can do to limit the number of pages that
> we render for each blog. For example, we render a unique page view for
> every day (via the the /page/user/YYYYMMDD URLs) and for every entry
> (when viewed by permalink). If we could find a better way to structure
> our views of past posts, we could save lots of memory and bandwidth.
yes. i've disected our caching system pretty thoroughly and there are
some obvious places where we can make improvements. I've got a proposal
almost finished which I'll be sending out soon.
-- Allen
>
> - Dave
>
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by Matt Raible <mr...@gmail.com>.
On 11/5/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use
> > those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged
> > in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone.
>
> I really like the edit links on the page and the especially the
> editor-menu which appears when I'm logged in. I'd hate to lose that
> feature and I don't think it's hard to have a special cache for
> logged-in user pages (since we do that now) or just leave them out of
> the cache.
I agree with Dave here - I rely on the "Edit" link quite heavily. If
we do take it out, please provide a configuration setting to add it
back in.
Matt
>
> I don' think logged-in-user-pages filling up the cache is that big of
> an issue at all. They only get cache if the user browses his own blog,
> generally users don't do that very often and when then do they don't
> generally visit every page. So, they don't double the cache as you
> suggest.
>
> I do think there are things we can do to limit the number of pages that
> we render for each blog. For example, we render a unique page view for
> every day (via the the /page/user/YYYYMMDD URLs) and for every entry
> (when viewed by permalink). If we could find a better way to structure
> our views of past posts, we could save lots of memory and bandwidth.
>
> - Dave
>
>
Re: removing the "edit" links on rendered weblogs?
Posted by Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org>.
On Nov 4, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> Anyways, I wanted to try and feel out how many people really like/use
> those "edit" links which show up on their weblog when they are logged
> in. I have never used them so I wouldn't care much if they were gone.
I really like the edit links on the page and the especially the
editor-menu which appears when I'm logged in. I'd hate to lose that
feature and I don't think it's hard to have a special cache for
logged-in user pages (since we do that now) or just leave them out of
the cache.
I don' think logged-in-user-pages filling up the cache is that big of
an issue at all. They only get cache if the user browses his own blog,
generally users don't do that very often and when then do they don't
generally visit every page. So, they don't double the cache as you
suggest.
I do think there are things we can do to limit the number of pages that
we render for each blog. For example, we render a unique page view for
every day (via the the /page/user/YYYYMMDD URLs) and for every entry
(when viewed by permalink). If we could find a better way to structure
our views of past posts, we could save lots of memory and bandwidth.
- Dave