On 30/06/06, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
But still, it is a eye candy, that requires quite a lot of resources...
You call it eye candy, I call it an interesting and potentially damn useful feature idea. Running a web site that gets upwards of ten thousand odd hits per second, allowing any old web user to edit it, etc. etc. also requires resources.
How do we handle the hit rate? Caching. Squids, shared memory caching and opcode caching, not to mention encouraging the client side cache where possible. Our resources evolve to meet our needs. We can adapt to what our code base is doing.
Sure, unreasonable and needless performance drains are a bitch, and I'm all for eradicating them. But the emphasis is on unreasonable and needless.
I'm well aware of the issues that the innocuous phrase "caching diffs" brings up, hence the "...". But here we have an interesting proposal - it's new born, it might not have the cleanest implementation, and it might turn out to be a load of bollocks. You won't known until we've examined it in more detail.
So performance is an issue. When is it not?
Rob Church