[8.x] Implement supportsTags() on the Cache Repository #34820
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… more elegantly if the currently chosen cache store is taggable.
mathiasonea
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This small enhancement would be a benefit to all those users using something like Redis in their production environment, but can't setup locally any redis or other taggable Cache Store. Currently, if your cache driver does not support tags (e.g. locally, you would have to wrap the
tags()call in a try catch block. In my opinion that is quite verbose.In order to find out more elegantly if the currently chosen cache store supports tags, a new method
supportsTags()is proposed on the Cache Repository. With this method, they can execute the "tagging" part of the cache logic only if their chosen cache store supports that feature.It does not affect any other caching behaviour, neither does it touch any other aspect of the framework itself, so this should be a safe one.