On 6/14/06, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Also, what
exactly is so slow about the transclusion? Raw inclusion
of source code from another source is not typically a particularly
expensive operation, when thinking of C's #INCLUDE, for example. Is it
the finding of the transcluded page by name, or what?
What part of the email I sent implies it's "so slow"?
None. However, common belief appears to be that substituting commonly
used, static templates is good for performance reasons.
Or could it be
theoretically possible to cache page sections rather
than whole pages, to reduce the risk of having to reparse the whole
page, or something?
I'm not sure that would provide a long term benefit.
No? Ok.
If there's no need, then don't do it. It has
been stated time and time
again that, when the development or system administration teams make
policies, they are usually going to be software enforced. If you need
something done for editorial reasons, *go ahead and do it.* It's your
job to write the damn encyclopaedia, and it's our job to worry about
the software and servers coping with it.
Need to transclude {{x}} into 30,000 pages? Do it. Utilise common
sense and avoid changing it too much, sure; but don't act like you
shouldn't actually make use of the software. That's a stupid attitude.
So, bots that transclude for performance reasons should be stopped?
All the templates that are labelled "This template is a good candidate
for subst:" should be rethought? Do you think your response represents
"the developers'" opinion in general?
Steve