httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davi Arnaut <d...@haxent.com.br>
Subject Re: Possible new cache architecture
Date Wed, 03 May 2006 18:54:48 GMT
On Wed, 3 May 2006 11:39:02 -0700
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On May 3, 2006, at 5:56 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 3 May 2006 14:31:06 +0200 (SAST)
> > "Graham Leggett" <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 3, 2006 1:26 am, Davi Arnaut said:
> >>
> >>>> Then you will end up with code that does not meet the  
> >>>> requirements of
> >>>> HTTP, and you will have wasted your time.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, right! How ? Hey, you are using the Monty Python argument  
> >>> style.
> >>> Can you point to even one requirement of HTTP that my_cache_provider
> >>> wont meet ?
> >>
> >> Yes. Atomic insertions and deletions, the ability to update headers
> >> independantly of body, etc etc, just go back and read the thread.
> >
> > I can't argue with a zombie, you keep repeating the same  
> > misunderstands.
> >
> >> Seriously, please move this off list to keep the noise out of  
> >> people's
> >> inboxes.
> >
> > Fine, I give up.
> 
> For the record, Graham's statements were entirely correct,
> Brian's suggested architecture would slow the HTTP cache,
> and your responses have been amazingly childish for someone
> who has earned zero credibility on this list.

Fine, I do have zero credibility.

> I suggest you stop defending a half-baked design theory and
> just go ahead and implement something as a patch.  If it works,
> that's great.  If it slows the HTTP cache, I will veto it myself.

I'm already doing this.

> There is, of course, no reason why the HTTP cache has to use
> some new middle-layer back-end cache, so maybe you could just
> stop arguing about vaporware and simply implement a single
> mod_backend_cache that doesn't try to be all things to all people.
> 
> Implement it and then convince people on the basis of measurements.
> That is a heck of a lot easier than convincing everyone to dump
> the current code based on an untested theory.
> 

I just wanted to get comments (the original idea wasn't mine).

It wasn't my intention to flame anyone, I'm not mad or anything.
I was just stating my opinion. I maybe wrong, but I don't give
up easy. :)

--
Davi Arnaut

Mime
View raw message