Due to caching and moderation, it may not be displayed right away.

We have an internal CS blog here at my current gig. You get this when you comment:

"However, due to caching and moderation, it may not be displayed right away."

Am I the only one troubled by this as being generally bad form? In techie circles, sure, whatever, I can deal with that, but would John Q. Pornsurfer care about the technical implementation? And even if they did, why wouldn't the update cache-bust the data anyway?

Maybe one of the Telligent folks can explain the thinking on this.


  • Yeah, I always thought that, that was a pretty silly feature/message!

  • Hmm - I can't see a problem with that. The only technical term (not even THAT technical I'd say) in that text is 'caching'.

    And I guess that could simply be removed so people think it's to do with moderation only.

    What would you change it to? Just:"Your post may not appear immediately." ?

  • If there was cache busting of the comment set, as I think there should be, I wouldn't say anything. And if there was moderation, then I'd just say your post must be approved by a moderator.

  • The point here's that, even for unmoderated blogs, this message is shown for a while.

  • Btw, this blog's pretty fast! Comments appear instantly!

  • Sure - I can see that if you have cache invalidation with update notifications in place, you don't need anything at all.

    But if you use caching without that model, i.e. some people use Oracle (I know - crazy stuff!), you can't use this...

  • i don't see what the database has to do with it




    Cache.Remove(string.Format("PostComments:{0}", this._postId));


    And in 2.0 you can programmatically invalidate outputcache too I think.

  • karl,

    I wasn't talking about the caching API, but about the Output Cache, either fragment caching or Page level caching.

  • The problem has to do with the fact that the servers operate in a farm, so this won't work:

    Cache.Remove(string.Format("PostComments:{0}", this._postId));

    Well, it will work, but just for that server :)

    Now, I realize that not all servers run in a farm -- but the way this was designed was for 'farms' to begin with.

    Yes, I agree that it's not perfect and it's something we will definitely address once will build on top of .NET 2.0 and use database cache invalidation. I'll file a bug about it :)

  • I can appreciate that reasoning. The gig I'm on now has a lot of these kinds of issues, and we've found some fairly simple and efficient ways of dealing with cache invalidation.

    Here's a question for anyone that knows... How good/bad is caching scheme for SQL Server 2005? Not just single records, but groups of records (like comments)?

  • For SQL 2005 DB cache invalidation is very good...

Comments have been disabled for this content.