Re: [Zope] CacheManager missing in 2.6.2b4 :-(
[moving to Zope-Dev] Jamie Heilman wrote:
That depends on the cache replacement policy you need. If you're not tied to LFU then you can just switch to using my MemoryCache product. (With all the various caveats surrounding it, of course, python 2.2, patching Zope, etc.)
Why Python 2.2? What's the patching you do? What's 'etc'? Have you submitted a collector issue for all this? If so, I might try and work on it some time, although it's not an area I specialise in :-( I wonder if anyone on this list could help out? cheers, Chris
Chris Withers wrote:
Jamie Heilman wrote:
That depends on the cache replacement policy you need. If you're not tied to LFU then you can just switch to using my MemoryCache product. (With all the various caveats surrounding it, of course, python 2.2, patching Zope, etc.)
Why Python 2.2? What's the patching you do? What's 'etc'?
2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency. The stock OFS/Cache.py is insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API. There is no third thing.
Have you submitted a collector issue for all this? If so, I might try and work on it some time, although it's not an area I specialise in :-( I wonder if anyone on this list could help out?
Yes and no. Its issue 911. "Working on it" would require: $ cd your-zope-cvs-head $ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/Cache.py > lib/python/OFS/Cache.py $ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cmassoc.diff | patch -p0 $ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cachemanagers.diff | patch -p0 $ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/Cache.py to replace \ ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble $ cvs commit Of course I'd happily invite peer review of my code. But none of that will fix that RAM Cache Manager's waste memory. Again, its just a choice that was made in RCM's design, less processing overhead w/the potential for more memory usage. -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "Most people wouldn't know music if it came up and bit them on the ass." -Frank Zappa
Jamie Heilman wrote:
2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency.
That, on its own, is not a very helpful statement ;-) What are the differences between 2.1 and 2.2 that you care about?
The stock OFS/Cache.py is insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API. There is no third thing.
Have you got a collector issue / Fishbowl proposal anywhere that is looking to get this accepted? What reasons could people have for not liking this new Cache.py?
Yes and no. Its issue 911. "Working on it" would require: $ cd your-zope-cvs-head $ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/Cache.py > lib/python/OFS/Cache.py $ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cmassoc.diff | patch -p0 $ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cachemanagers.diff | patch -p0
Well, I'm not confident that I understand the relevent code to do this and then do a CVS commit ;-) I wonder who is?
$ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/Cache.py to replace \ ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble
With what? This kind of comment is a bit inflamatory and not at all helpful :-(
But none of that will fix that RAM Cache Manager's waste memory.
Indeed, but I wouldn't call it waste memory...
Again, its just a choice that was made in RCM's design, less processing overhead w/the potential for more memory usage.
...it's just a design choice. cheers, Chris
Chris Withers wrote:
Jamie Heilman wrote:
2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency.
That, on its own, is not a very helpful statement ;-) What are the differences between 2.1 and 2.2 that you care about?
2.2 is installed on my machines, 2.1 isn't. It might work in 2.1 for all I know, but I'm not going to bother back-patch it even if it is possible, I'm simply not interested in supporting old versions of Python. (and no, I don't run Zope 2.6.x)
The stock OFS/Cache.py is insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API. There is no third thing.
Have you got a collector issue / Fishbowl proposal anywhere that is looking to get this accepted? What reasons could people have for not liking this new Cache.py?
Yes, No, Read the collector issue.
$ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/Cache.py to replace \ ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble
With what? This kind of comment is a bit inflamatory and not at all helpful :-(
I'm just saying don't forget to add the preamble if you do check it in over the old library. (my Cache.py doesn't have it) Or don't. I don't care either way. -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "It's almost impossible to overestimate the unimportance of most things." -John Logue
participants (2)
-
Chris Withers -
Jamie Heilman