From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:01:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] gitweb: gravatar url cache
Message-ID: <7vvdmlnpug.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <cb7bb73a0906241546x6b6164e7w4e6c6601d1119032@mail.gmail.com>

Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Views which contain many occurrences of the same email address (e.g.
>>> shortlog view) benefit from not having to recalculate the MD5 of the
>>> email address every time.
>>> ---
>>
>> Sign-off?
>
> Duh.
>
>> I think the cache is placed at the wrong level (it doesn't have to be a
>> GRavatar_url_cache, but can be a general avatar_url_cache).
>
> I'm not sure about it. The URL depends on email and size (can you use
> arrays as hash keys in Perl?) , and the email part might be the same
> but the size part might differ across separate calls (in theory; in
> practice avatars in a view are presently all the same size; but for
> example if we were to autodetect email addresses in commit messages,
> we might have both single- and double- sided avatars in the same
> page). By hashing on email+size only we would lose the benefit of
> cache when using the same avatar at separate sizes.

You can use nested hash, like:

	$avatar_cache{$email}{$size}

or

	$avatar_cache{$size}{$email}

but that is completely orthogonal to the issue of using a single cache
shared across services, isn't it?