|
|
|
|
|
by sandstrom
4183 days ago
|
|
I understand that you want to offer something that 'beats' varnish, and it shines through in the article. But I don't think it matters if your cache is better than every other cache. Rather, as long as you offer a convenient, easily implemented cache, built into the webserver, that's great in itself. We're using Passenger on all our production servers and are most satisfied, because of its ease of use. Perhaps you could just write "this could be accomplished with Varnish, which has a lot of benefits for advanced cases, but we think our cache will be useful for those that prefer not to manage a separate caching tier." |
|
I am the author of the article. No, the point is not to "beat" Varnish. It is an article describing various ideas and a call for help. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8844905
Perhaps the writing style gave a competitive impression, so I've updated the article to mention that we're not out to beat Varnish, but to research the possibilities.
Knowing that Varnish can accomplish some of the things is good, because that way we can draw from an existing pool of experience.