Giacomo Pati wrote:
> There is always a balance between used resources and achieved
> performance. You do database denormalization because of performance as
> well but it costs you disk space and managment efforts. And a cache
> system as I've mentioned below will end up serving static pages most of
> the time.
Absolutely correct. In fact Cocoon has a cache even if both the web
server and a proxy down the road should/would perform better caching.
And does indeed help. But you don't create a thousands of index keys on
your tables for every possible unique row, don't you? This is my point.
> > > If a part is dynamic (i.e.
> > > SQLFilter) we cannot specify a resource or have to specify a resource
> > > which changes very often (i.e. TIME) and the system has to restart the
> > > pipeline at least at this part using the intermediate result that was
> > > produced prior to this part.
> >
> > Normally the most frequently changeable point is the generator. So, you
> > waste a lot of resources by saving the intermediate points.
>
> I can't verify that so you might have probably right ?-)
I can't either, so I might be wrong :) But it appears as a reasonable
guess to me.
> > Well, while I agree with you that general sub-pipelining is probably a
> > bad thing (smells of FS too much), this is a not a subpipeline but a
> > special generator that reuses the cocoon engine to work.
>
> [What's FS]
Flexibilty Syndrome, an anti-pattern that I defined to express the
dangerous idea that "if you do '1', '2' and '3', you should do 'n'"
Guess why I don't like Perl :)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
|