- Compatible with WordPress 1,5 and superior (proven in 1.5, 2,0, 2,1 and 2,2).
- Fast and simple Instalación/configuración.
- Portable: it anywhere publishes the file for your convenience and úsalo.
- The frisked archives keep in archives HTML, and they are organized in directories who emulate urls, so it is easy to show the content of the archives and to organize them (for example to erase the cache of a specific entrance, of all the categories. of all the searches, of all the entrances of one it dates certain, etc.)
- If “safe_mode” is qualified, plugin still will work, creating all the archives in the cache directory.
- Option to erase all the archives frisked (or only the breathed ones) from the panel of WordPress.
- Time of expiration for the frisked archives.
- Text chains accepted and rejected to control urls exactly to frisk.
- User Agents rejected to avoid on-frisked originating of finders.
- The frisked archives (including the cache of the initial page) will be updated when the entrances and the commentaries will be publicados/editados/borrados.
- Option to include heading “You expire” to qualify the cache of the navigator (a speed of still more fast answer and less requests of page).
- Only requests GET will be frisked.
- The registered users do not see frisked pages.
- Super-he recharges of the navigator (Ctrl+F5) avoids urls frisked.
- Compatible with the Gzip compression.
Necessary new features?
Although I recognize that I have not watched the 100% code calls the attention to me those three points that I have put in negrita. Let us see why:
The use of heads “Expires” it is what they recommended two days ago in AskApache, an entrance in English that allows to qualify the heads of Cache-Control and Content-Length. Good part of that implementation is in original WP-Cache. But with the commented code, the reason:
/ * Not used to avoid problems with some PHP installations */
And it is that if memory bad, PHP working as cgi gives problems in those cases or what is not the same: it is possible (that not surely) that to 1blogcacher is not as compatible as WP-Cache although this one already of by himself has had problems with modern versions of PHP (like WordPress).
Also it is possible to be extrapolated that applying that one patch if your installation of PHP does not give problems it can even improve plus the yield.
Another subject is the one of the use of gzip: to add to compression gzip to documents is very well (I have been time requesting to Ricardo to see when she can incorporate it) but the ideal would be to frisk two copies of each document: compressed and without compressing, the “al compression vuelo” it does not convince in some casos… to me; and nevertheless my hosting (Dreamhost) uses it: and it goes of luxury, but I ask myself if to use two compressions simultaneously it can cause problems…
And the second compression (the DEFLATE that makes the server) in many cases as in the one of Dreamhost not always it is possible to be deactivated via htaccess (depends on the server).
Another worrisome subject is the memory consumption, (the apparently rare) design of WP-Cache is not trivial or a whim: it is made so that if exists a frisked copy avoids the load of WordPress and therefore consume the possible minimum…
to 1blogcacher to send a static page load until 75% of the code of WordPress (and to put 75% of 6MB in memory to send a HTML… because not). WP-Cache in that one sense if a page frisked for the code of WordPress and the consumption never exists I have seen it superior to 200KB of memory.
That can suppose a disadvantage for WP-Cache: it means that you cannot accede to functions or code of the own WordPress from a frisked page but — aside from something necessary — it is the only way to reduce the memory consumption drastically. In addition once you have the frisked page you need to accede to something of WordPress? Very not very often and in those cases you can rewrite the function to an external file to execute it dynamically.