| | 1 | === Pre-2010 === |
| | 2 | Tickets [[http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12427|#12427]] and [[http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11675|#11675]] are opened with different by related goals: get rid of cmemcache (which had gone the way of the broken-as-heck dodo) and add support for a new libmemcached wrapper pylibmc (respectively). |
| | 3 | |
| | 4 | |
| | 5 | === Feb 2010 === |
| | 6 | Email thread seen here begins: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/4eb685ca5b305f18/ |
| | 7 | |
| | 8 | |
| | 9 | === March 2010 === |
| | 10 | Ticket is put in for 1.2 to put use of cmemcache as FuturePendingDeprecation, while adding support for pylibmc was greenlit for 1.3 |
| | 11 | |
| | 12 | === October 2010 === |
| | 13 | Discussion re-started with three key points to debate: |
| | 14 | |
| | 15 | |
| | 16 | * Pylibmc 1.1 doesn't play that nice with mod_wsgi due to it's use of the Simplified GIL API (see: http://www.dctrwatson.com/2010/09/beware-of-using-pylibmc-1-1-and-mod_wsgi/). Probably just need to make note of it in the documentation, but it's worth noting. |
| | 17 | * The suggested use of using query-string for client-specific options and libmemcached 'behaviors' eventually leading to massive client strings, and the use of a CACHE_SETTINGS dictionary may be a better solution. |
| | 18 | * Because it bypasses the GIL, pylibmc isn't thread safe. There are a few different solutions, the most apparent being to use pylibmc's ThreadMappedPool. More info here: http://lericson.blogg.se/code/2009/september/draft-sept-20-2009.html and http://blog.sendapatch.se/2009/september/pooling-with-pylibmc-pt-2.html . |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | Another post of note with regards to multithreading [ala, celery] here: http://www.dctrwatson.com/2010/09/python-thread-safe-does-not-mean-fork-safe/#more-48 |