Thanks Jason and Graham.  I'll look into Squid.

Regards,
Dan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Sibre" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:05 PM
Subject: RE: [Quixote-users] Caching?


> Well, without seeing a code sample, it's hard to see exactly what you have
> in mind, but yes, I'd definitely plan on using a dictionary as the
> underlying storage scheme.  If you're concerned about performance (and I'm
> guessing you are, since we're talking about caching) you might want to
> consider maintaining a list of tuples of (expiration_time, cache_key) that
> you can move through in sequence (until reaching the first item you don't
> want to expire yet) and expire cache entries that way instead of by
looping
> through ALL the items in the cache looking for expiration candidates.  On
> the other hand, maybe you don't imagine you cache growing large enough for
> that to be a concern.
>
> On the other hand, I think Graham's point (about squid) is a very good
> one...  That's what caching proxies are designed for, and if you do things
> that way, you'll be implementing a cache technique that's proven, and more
> universal (and truly takes the load off your server).
>
> Jason
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: quixote-users-bounces+jsibre=chironsys.com@mems-exchange.org
> > [mailto:quixote-users-bounces+jsibre=chironsys.com@mems-exchange.org]On
> > Behalf Of Dan Gottlieb
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:30 PM
> > To: quixote-users@mems-exchange.org
> > Subject: Re: [Quixote-users] Caching?
> >
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.  I was hoping someone with more Python
> > experience
> > had built something I could work off of, but if my work load
> > eases up in the
> > next few days I'll probably take a crack at putting together a caching
> > mechanism myself.  My inclination would be to use a dictionary with
global
> > scope for the actual cache, matching cache keys with a tupples of
> > expiration
> > times and html strings and then periodically loop through and
> > remove expired
> > items.  Is this a good way to structure things?  I'd appreciate any
advice
> > that you have.
> >
> > - Dan
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jason Sibre" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Quixote-users] Caching?
> >
> >
> > > > Is there an equivalent caching module for Quixote?
> > > >
> > > > Also, much of what the new app will be doing is finding URLs in a
> > > > database
> > > > based on the querystring and then sending redirects to the client.
> > > > Obviously, I'd like to cache the key / URL pairs after they
> > are used the
> > > > first time.  Is there an easy way to do this with Quixote?
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > While there isn't (to my knowledge) a caching module per se in
> > Quixote, it
> > > would be very easy to implement, and there are a number of ways it
could
> > be
> > > done.  The first that comes to mind would be sub-classing the
Publisher
> > > class to implement a CachingPublisher, which, upon seeing a familiar
URL
> > > could return the cached version of the data without even going
> > through the
> > > URL traversal stage.  Another would be to subclass Publisher to make
it
> > call
> > > a caching proxy when it's ready to publish an
> > object/namespace/function/etc,
> > > and let the proxy have a crack at serving a cached version, or
fetching
> > the
> > > real thing.  I'm sure there are lots of ways to do this,
> > (probably two or
> > > three for each person using Quixote!) but I think most or all of high
> > > performance ones would involve subclassing the Publisher.  I don't
know
> > how
> > > familiar you are with the source, (but I'm assuming you aren't very
> > familiar
> > > with it) but this is really an easy proposition.
> > >
> > > On your second point, if you mean something like
> > > "http://server.org/goto?url=http://somedocserver/doc.txt" gets looked
up
> > to
> > > be routed to some other url, this would be easy to do, results could
be
> > > cacheable, and you wouldn't have to modify the Quixote framework in
any
> > way.
> > >
> > > Of course, you'd have to implement the caching mechanism yourself, (it
> > > wouldn't magically happen as I suspect it does in .NET), and
> > you'd have to
> > > deal with issues like cache expiry, cache size limitations, and the
like
> > > when you come up with your implementation.  Also, caching would
> > be useless
> > > (performance wise) if the Quixote process isn't some form of
> > long running
> > > process (FastCGI, SCGI, running standalone as Medusa, or
> > Twisted, etc...)
> > > but I'm guessing that's obvious...  Just wanted to throw it out there
in
> > > case it isn't.  I don't know your environment, so I don't know
> > how tricky
> > > that might be to pull off.  (Having worked in MS shops before, I know
> > > sometimes it's impossible to get admins to let you set up 'crazy
things'
> > > (anything not from Redmond) on 'their' servers!)
> > >
> > > Hope that helps, and if not, stick around, I'm sure some other
> > folks with
> > > have interesting comments on this.
> > >
> > > Jason Sibre
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Quixote-users mailing list
> > > Quixote-users@mems-exchange.org
> > > http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Quixote-users mailing list
> > Quixote-users@mems-exchange.org
> > http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Quixote-users mailing list
> Quixote-users@mems-exchange.org
> http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
>
>