[wp-hackers] Caching as part of the core
mike at newclarity.net
Sat Jul 28 12:06:56 UTC 2012
On Jul 28, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Ryan McCue <lists at rotorised.com> wrote:
> And if there's not a dropin, then there's no need to use the object
> cache at all. I'm not sure exactly what the issue with that is.
You realize you've just made the argument circular? The proposal was to make dropins use hooks. Re-read my numerous prior posts on this thread explaining, please.
> In order to use transients, we
> need more of the WP core loaded, which is not possible at this stage.
It is absolutely possible, with a change in he order of loading.
All the arguments against caching on his thread seem to say "you can and should roll your own and WP already has everything needed built in" But when we point out that we need core support to roll our own we are told "Oh, you shouldn't use built in functionality because it's not appropriate." The logic of the arguments is becoming circular which tells me it's a mostly bias against caching that's driving these discussions.
> So, we could then load the core, but that defeats the purpose of having
> advanced-cache.php early (namely: to avoid having to load the core).
No it doesn't. "Core" is not a single monolithic component, it is many small files and what I'm suggesting would only be loading a couple functions, which is insignificant.
> Mike, as the one who wants change, the onus is on you to prove why this
> is a good idea, and to provide a patch.
I've been planning to show code, but last week was a bad time to do it for many reasons (too many projects due at once, sick for several days,etc.). I hope to find time this weekend but I do have other code to finish that must come first.
My last post on the topic was a reply otherwise I would have waited until I had code to discuss again.
More information about the wp-hackers