So what's so bad about servercache?

Forum|Forum|17 years ago
March 27, 2009
2 replies
569 views

Excuse how brief this post is, the forum decided to boot me out mid posting and I lost everything I had written. Long story short, why does the API reference say it's "bad" to use type='servercache' with the <cfcache> tag?

This topic has been closed for replies.

S

skeloothAuthor

Inspiring

Well, I'll answer my own question:

The request has exceeded the allowable time limit Tag: cfhttp

Really odd. I'm not sure why cfcache relies on cfhttp, but that's the new point of failure. I'll have to go back to using custom caching routines using wddx.

N

Newsgroup_User

Inspiring

> why does the API reference
> say it's "bad" to use type='servercache' with the <cfcache> tag?

I've never used <cfcache> in production, but I would guess it's because if
you can set it to try to cache clientside as well, why wouldn't you? It
potentially saves hits to the server, and it fails seamlessly if the client
can't / won't cache it. There's just very little harm in at least
attempting to cache things on both sides.

Why do you ask?

--
Adam

S

skeloothAuthor

Inspiring

I was just curious since there was no explanation behind the warning. I'm working on a very slow server that hosts a very big website, and it likes to time out during anything more complicated than a simple query. I've been using my own caching routines using wddx but cfcache looks attractive as a one size fits all solution. I'm more interested in the server side caching because the problems occur when users try to access the server when it's already bogged down and it times out. With things cached thanks to previous visitors things just pop right into place.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded