Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Fancy frameworks do use caching, but I think of that as a kludgy > > workaround for lousy performance of the framework itself. A fast > > framework should not need caching, except maybe caching gzip output > > for large blocks of contiguous text. > The value of caching is mostly for heavy-duty applications built on > top of the framework. The framework has no control over how much > computation the application does, but can offer savings by > "short-circuiting" the repeated execution of lengthy page computations > in application code.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "lousy performance of the framework itself" when I should have included the application. If the application's page computations are so lengthy, then they too need speeding up. We've got a situation where some big sites (Slashdot, Wikipedia) have a lot of cached static pages for non-logged-in users (they all see the same thing), but any user who is logged in sees a version customized by their preferences, that's usually not cached. So there's a perverse incentive to not log in, since you see the static page faster. I'd really like to get hold of a big active blog or BBS server to profile it. It's been puzzling me for years what makes them so slow. They just paste user-contributed content together with HTML from templates, so you'd think it shouldn't be too complicated. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
