Posted by killes@www.drop.org on April 23, 2009 at 10:35pm
Jump to:
| Project: | Memcache API and Integration |
| Version: | 6.x-1.x-dev |
| Component: | Code |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | closed (fixed) |
Issue Summary
There's a new memcached PECL extension, http://pecl.php.net/package/memcached, anybody interesting in making this module use it?
Comments
#1
dupe of #427440: Suport 3.x versions of the PECL package
#2
This is not a duplicate. The 3.x version of the memcache PECL extension (notice no d at the end) is not the same thing as the memcached PECL extension (notice the d at the end). I know that it seems like a minor difference, but they support different APIs. The memcached PECL extension supports a lot more of the functionality built into memcached (the daemon) than the memcache module does (currently into 3.x version). The version of the memcached module is 0.15.
I personally think we should wait on supporting memcached module until it is a little more stable. I did look at the API and the code and it looks very nice however.
Changing status to active.
#3
Not really interested in this past noting the pecl site does say the memcached package is stable now.
#4
Memcached is initially implemented in the Cacherouter project as alpha so I suggest point users there. We don't need to duplicate efforts.
#5
memcached PECL support was added to this module in 7.x and in 6.x-1.5+
#6
Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.
#7
is that still recommended?
atm, use of auto-detected pecl-memcached seems, for me anyway, broken (cref: http://drupal.org/node/792130#comment-2963378).
with cacherouter, no such problems.
i've been told that memcacheAPI's implementation is "more sophisticated" (not entirely sure what's meant by that ...), and, as such was recommended over cacherouter's implementation.
hence, my question -- which _should_ we use? short- &/or long-term?
thanks,
ben
#8
Whether you use the cacherouter module or the memcache module is totally up to you and your needs, if that's what you're asking. If you're asking which PECL package to use, I recommend using the newer memcached PECL package -- it should be fully supported in the 1.5 stable release of this module which I hope to roll out this week, pending confirmation that the bug you linked to is indeed fixed.