Sure. Caching the links would be my second choice. With the caveat we'd
still have operations that iterate over and wake up all of the wiki pages,
just not as often, since we'd save the result.
Chris
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Paul Everitt <email address hidden> wrote:
> Hmm, I originally thought: "We could move the work for this to an Ajax
> request after page load, which would be faster but we'd still have some
> ugly object cache pain." This was going to be our next step on the FILES
> "Move To" thing. But I suspect this work is being done in the page
> template, so the work would increase to throw jQuery at it.
>
> I think I should assign this to Nat and see how he feels about the
> feature-removal-for-performance tradeoff. Agree?
>
>
Sure. Caching the links would be my second choice. With the caveat we'd
still have operations that iterate over and wake up all of the wiki pages,
just not as often, since we'd save the result.
Chris
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Paul Everitt <email address hidden> wrote:
> Hmm, I originally thought: "We could move the work for this to an Ajax removal- for-performance tradeoff. Agree?
> request after page load, which would be faster but we'd still have some
> ugly object cache pain." This was going to be our next step on the FILES
> "Move To" thing. But I suspect this work is being done in the page
> template, so the work would increase to throw jQuery at it.
>
> I think I should assign this to Nat and see how he feels about the
> feature-
>
>