Пн. 13 янв. 2014 16:12:29 пользователь Pavel Astakhov
(pastakhov(a)yandex.ru) написал:
From: Dmitriy Sintsov <questpc <at>
rambler.ru>
Subject: Re: Is Foxway a right way?
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=1389610306.562859.4565.53906%40mail.rambler.ru>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical
<http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical>
Date: 2014-01-13 10:51:46 GMT (29 minutes ago)
I implemented something similar before Scribunto was stable enough and
deployed
My idea is different
I know. But the interpreting probably is too
slow for huge-load wikis.
... many
people say that Lua ... better language in general ...
This is a very controversial
statement.
I use the PHP interpreter because mediawiki written in PHP and PHP is
more powerful.
Lua VM is not stack-based, it's RAM usage can be easily
controlled. The people behind Scribunto (Tim Starling and Victor Vasiliev) are better
programmers than me, if they choosed Lua then it's really worth something. Also Lua is
used as scripting language in huge number of various applications (games, scientific)
while PHP is not. Lua VM also was a bit faster than both PHP and Python some year ago.
From: Tyler
Romeo <tylerromeo <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is Foxway a right way?
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=CAE0Q5ovAtE%5f5WDgXr6rYUwkCqt%5fVNawuiMjWP9i%5fLbrXU5CAKA%40mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical
<http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical>
Date: 2014-01-13 09:37:46 GMT (43 minutes ago)
How does this compare to the PECL runkit extension? Also have you
benchmarked it against Scribunto? Because Scribunto does kind of the same
exact thing except just with a different programming language (and
Scribunto uses a native interpreter rather than one written in PHP).
I do not
propose to improve what is already there.
I'm sure there is nothing faster LUA and one is the best choice.
Why is there a need for LUA? Because building html page from wiki markup
without LUA takes a long time.
Why? Because wiki page use a lot of function calls that are working
together very slowly.
So let it be. Can not we just all be cached? No, pages change frequently
and cache is not dimensionless.
I guess they have enough of logged-in non-anonymous
users so not everything and not always may be cached. Also I remember bad things could
happen when source of template changes and lots of pages has to be regenerated, Scribunto
probably reduced CPU load a lot in such case. Do not forget they are not small / medium
size wiki but a really huge wiki.
I propose to discuss the new principle of building
html pages from the
wiki markup.
1. Need to separate Wiki markup from the functions, just as html
separated from PHP code. In this case, need to cache only the result of
these functions.
2. Let functions to work quickly. I checked, it is possible.
I'm not trying to build a page quickly, I'm trying to do this very
effectively. That is my idea.
Efficient use of resources gives bigger win in speed.
Maybe you could apply your extension to Goole Summer of Code, or to another similar
experimental project. They are announcing such projects regularly.
Dmitriy