[TYPO3-dev] RFC: Bug #6885 - Nested USER_INT, COA_INT, etc. objects are not rendered

[Oliver Hader]

Hi Ernesto,

Ernesto Baschny [cron IT] schrieb:
> Oliver Hader wrote: on 04.12.2007 20:34:
>> Just a small use case:
>> * website with same content in the border column (colPos=3) on each page
>> * thus, own user caching for this column because editing one of this CEs
>> would result in cleaning the whole cache
>>
>> 10 = USER_INT
>> 10 {
>>   userFunc = tx_cacheext_pi1->main
>>   # renderObj could also be tt_content, COA just as example
>>   renderObj = COA
>>   renderObj {
>>     10 = USER
>>     10.userFunc = tx_myfirstext_pi1
>>     20 = USER
>>     20.userFunc = tx_mysecondext_pi1
>>     30 = USER_INT
>>     30.userFunc = tx_mythirdext_pi1
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> I hope this helps when you're thinking about this... ;)
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense to just make the "last level" USER_INT's and
> leave the "hierarchy above" USER? After all the "USER" objects in
> between won't ever be able to "cache" anyway. I agree that this might
> need more configuration and won't probably work "out of the box" because
> you have to configure the whole TypoScript tree. But still doable...

Thanks for your feedback on that issue!

Do you mean something like this with "last level/hierarchy above"?
10 = USER
10 {
  userFunc = tx_cacheext_pi1->main
  renderObj = COA
  renderObj {
    10 = USER
    20 = USER
    30 = USER_INT
  }
}

The first level is the caching wrapper for the content below. The
renderObj is a CONTENT object (tt_content) and can be changed in
backend. Thus, it can also happen, that USER/USER_INT appear there -
depending on the extensions used.

See the website here: http://snipr.com/1untz

1) left and right columns (at the outer borders) are nearly the same on
every page of the website
2) if one of the boxes shown there is changed (and is integrated as USER
in TS), the cache for the whole website has to be cleared (because data
is written to cache content of each page)
3) so, the initial first USER_INT in my example could be seen as the
individual caching layer for the "regular" content below

So, point no. 2 is crux of the matter here and reason for the own
caching using an USER_INT.

> With your change an USER object might be uncached in certain situations
> and this might be confusing. But I agree that even more confusing is
> that nested USER_INTs won't do anything.

Anything below a USER_INT/COA_INT/... is not cached in the page contents
by default. I didn't change anything here.

> Anyway, I will wait for more comments on that one to give a final
> opinion. :)

Okay, then I'm also waiting for comments from others (otherwise we could
discus this via direct e-mail). :)

olly
-- 
Oliver Hader
http://inpublica.de/