You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to modproxy-dev@apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2001/07/10 17:41:31 UTC
Cache????
Does the 2.0 version of the proxy have a cache yet?
I grep'ed the code quickly, and didn't see anything, but I may have missed
it.
Thanks,
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cache????
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> My initial reaction is the proxy directory. It is a separate module, but
> it only makes a lot of sense with the proxy.
I've done it so that it is completely independant of the proxy.
The idea is that the cache will be capable of caching any kind of
content, from proxy content to CGI content to PHP content to static
content - whatever.
The cache supports (or will support) various dynamic backends, such as
cache-to-disk, cache-to-memory, or cache-to-shared-memory. The user
configuration will determine which dynamic backend is in force for which
URL prefix. It will also be possible to have more than one dynamic
backend on an URL prefix - so that for example if a cache-to-memory
cache gets full, the data will spill over into the cache-to-disk cache.
Currently the main framework for everything is in place, I just need to
create some skeletons for the backend modules. Been doing other things
and haven't had a chance to finish this, but I'll get this sorted by the
end of the week so at least there is a proof-of-concept out there.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Cache????
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Graham Leggett wrote:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > Does the 2.0 version of the proxy have a cache yet?
> >
> > I grep'ed the code quickly, and didn't see anything, but I may have missed
> > it.
>
> I've been working on some code here to do it as a separate module.
>
> I need to finish off a few things on it first - but I can commit
> something by the end of the week.
>
> Where should I commit it to?
My initial reaction is the proxy directory. It is a separate module, but
it only makes a lot of sense with the proxy.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cache????
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> Does the 2.0 version of the proxy have a cache yet?
>
> I grep'ed the code quickly, and didn't see anything, but I may have missed
> it.
I've been working on some code here to do it as a separate module.
I need to finish off a few things on it first - but I can commit
something by the end of the week.
Where should I commit it to?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Cache????
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On 10 Jul 2001, Ian Holsman wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2001 08:41:31 -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > Does the 2.0 version of the proxy have a cache yet?
> >
> I think the plan was to use the 'standard' file_cache filter.
>
> the 2.0 code removed all of the caching stuff which was present in 1.3
Yeah, but the file_cache filter isn't dynamic, is it? We still need some
way to write the file to the disk, because the file_cache filter looks at
the brigade, determines if the data came from the disk, and only caches if
the data in the brigade is in a file bucket.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Cache????
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@cnet.com>.
On 10 Jul 2001 08:41:31 -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> Does the 2.0 version of the proxy have a cache yet?
>
I think the plan was to use the 'standard' file_cache filter.
the 2.0 code removed all of the caching stuff which was present in 1.3
..Ian
> I grep'ed the code quickly, and didn't see anything, but I may have missed
> it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
> Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Ian Holsman IanH@cnet.com
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - (415) 364-8608
Re: Cache????
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
Nope. Graham's been working some on his ideas, off to the side.
Chuck
On Tuesday, July 10, 2001, at 11:41 AM, <rb...@covalent.net> wrote:
>
> Does the 2.0 version of the proxy have a cache yet?
>
> I grep'ed the code quickly, and didn't see anything, but I may have
> missed
> it.
>
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
http://www.topsail.org/