[TYPO3-dev] User/User_int - Same Plugin twice in ext?

[Ernesto Baschny [cron IT]]

Martin Kutschker wrote: on 08.12.2006 16:45:

>> This doesn't make sense, because if you call your script, you have the
>> same effect as an USER_INT. So at this point it is already too late to
>> cache. The main advantage of a cached page with just "USER" objects is
>> that TYPO3 doesn't need to call ANY code or even load any TYPO3
>> framework: Just spit out the page from cache.
> 
> I have suggested such a type called USER_CINT. Search for the threads in
> the dev and the Core list. Response was lukewarm and those who were in
> favour of it shot it down by nitpicking on an implementation detail. *

I remember that quite well, and I also responded to your proposition,
basically saying that this would add nothing more than we can already do
with TS (COA_INT based on piVars). Your response was that it would be
easier for developers to have it done in PHP by TYPO3 core, and I am not
sure I agree.

What I don't see is in which situation would that help developers
writing its code and admins having to tune TYPO3 caching:

Where is the issue in the "list view" vs "detail view"? Both can be
cached! A "search result" view is always non-cached. Only situation
where the plugin won't know beforehand if TYPO3 should cache the output
or not would be if we depend on "internal" information. E.g. the output
depends on currently logged in fe_user. So if fe_user is logged in,
output is always "non-cached" (USER_INT). Even if we would love to cache
the output if no user is logged in, if we do: We won't be able to have
our user-specific output, as TYPO3 will already have cached the page
anyway! So USER_CINT won't help here too (once cached, the same URL
won't ever give us other information, even if some fe_user logs in!).

So please provide some "real-world" scenario where this would make
sense, and you might be able to convince me. Simply introducing it so
that developers can use it instead of calling no_cache() won't solve the
problem, as the developer has to think about the caching and use USER
instead.

Cheers,
Ernesto