More Privacy Options Plugin

[trent]

It is crazy of me to "cross post", but this one is driving me insane.

http://mu.wordpress.org/forums/topic.php?id=7677&page&replies=1

The plugin works fine and doesn't actually change the privacy option to public in the database, but if someone creates a new blog, the privacy options seem to not work if the user is on the default blog.   Not 100% yet with other themes.   Anyone got a clue how this could happen?

Trent

[Luke]

No idea. Never had a use for that myself.

If I did, it would be a rare case, and I would simply hook into the wp_head function, and check if the user is logged in, and then their permission level.

Kicking them to a default page if they aren't allowed.

[trent]

Believe it or not, I might have narrowed it down to just having "cached" versions through wp-cache, object cache or super-cache giving me the issue by serving up the content that way.    I am not even sure how to stop a private blog from being cache though....

[Andrea_R]

I think that might be it. I just tested it (finally) on my dev site and it works as expected.

http://crazy.mommieblogs.com/
http://realestate.mommieblogs.com/
http://testing.mommieblogs.com/

[trent]

It for sure is wp-cache that is doing it and I guess the only way to stop it other than disabling the plugin is get the plugin to stop caching the index page.   It would be "way" better to stop these plugins from caching complete blogs, but I prefer to run it sitewide and not on an individual blog basis.   I am a little lost I guess.

Trent

[Luke]

Honestly, WP-Cache (or Super-Cache) need only be on really active blogs. It's something better used selectively than globally.

Caching blogs that rarely get traffic, and may only serve a dozen cache pages before that cache is deemed as expired really doesn't save enough to worry about.

It's something to save for the heavily hit sites, where it actually is needed. Even the almighty wp.com applies this same methodology. Donncha's discussed it in a few presentations, as well as some other tidbits.

[drmike]

Honestly, WP-Cache (or Super-Cache) need only be on really active blogs. It's something better used selectively than globally.

Agreed.  We've desided to just use the object cache on our installs.  Having the system take the time and write entire pages to the hard drive and then have them expire before they get accessed again just isn't worth it for us.

I'm beginning to wonder though if there's something seriously wrong with the object cache, even outside of the current issue.  I've got an open ticket here on Andrew's Premium plugin and how cancelling a package isn't taking effect. (I think that stuff is cached.)

[trent]

There is no doubt about that Luke and drmike about not needing a plugin for small traffic.    Most blogs will never have enough traffic to justify these cache plugins for regular use and only benefit if they ever get hit by one of the social networking sites.   

I guess even changing the plugin to be enabled in the "plugins" directory  would work, but need a change to the plugin structure as it would need to use each blogs upload directory and not the standard wp-content folder.

That or just get the plugin to work with "private blogs" and not cache them.   The problem completely disappears if the plugins are off, so I at least know what needs to be done if I decide to ever continue using the cache plugins.   Obviously I can still use the object cache and will continue, but wp-cache and super-cache need some changes for them to work for this problem.

This is now resolved and thanks for all the testing and replies everyone.   It is greatly appreciated!

Trent

[drmike]

There is no doubt about that Luke and drmike about not needing a plugin for small traffic. 

It's an ego thing.  Strut around Wordcamp "Yeah, my mu install is so popular, we had to install the super cache plugin.  Now make way.  I take big steps."

[trent]

It's an ego thing.  Strut around Wordcamp "Yeah, my mu install is so popular, we had to install the super cache plugin.  Now make way.  I take big steps."

Now that is funny    Believe it or not, it does decrease the load on the server fairly significantly as it almost drops the amount of queries on the database.    That being said, so does object cache and I haven't really compared the differences with just object cache running.

Interesting enough, I was more concerned that my bloggers were having private journals public than anything and that is enough to keep the plugin off regardless of the small performance gains

Trent

[drmike]

Now that is funny    Believe it or not, it does decrease the load on the server fairly significantly as it almost drops the amount of queries on the database.    That being said, so does object cache and I haven't really compared the differences with just object cache running.

I noticed that as well during our tests.  It looks like the wp-cache portion of Donncha's plugin does it's own caching like the object cache does.

I'm tempted to see what the average page count per blog is.  Gotta admit that if it's less than 100 or so for an average blog, I'd just stick with the object cache since that's caching what needs to be cached. (ie the name of the blog, the url, the theme choosen, etc.)

edit: I want to sit down someday, pop open the saved files and see what's in there.

[Luke]

... but on blogs that are active traffic generators in the normal plugins directory (which also requires work to not use the standard wp-content directory).

That's not right, or a "good" idea.

End users most likely don't have the necessary comprehension to decide whether or not they really need caching enabled or not.

Did you read through the WP-Cache thread, where Quentin and I go back and forth about WP-Cache?

If you have a need for caching on a handful of blogs, get the Super Cache plugin, install it like it is "supposed" to be for MU, then selectively define which blogs to enable it for.

[trent]

That is great idea Luke and I really appreciate the advice.

Trent

[drmike]

Did you read through the WP-Cache thread, where Quentin and I go back and forth about WP-Cache?

Which thread was that?  Gotta admit that any thread you and another poster "chat" for a bit, chances are someone (not you) is going to start taking potshots at folks.

[Luke]

This was before the latest assclown troll popped up to try and annoy me.

Although, most of that doesn't apply now with Super Cache. I'd use that over WP-Cache.

It's saved my ass these past couple weeks, that's for sure. Pages from SC are served pretty well, even when under a decent load. WP-Cache pages, not so much.

[drmike]

One of our mu hosts raised the suggestion that wp-super-cache may also be used to multi-home sites like how wp.com does their mutliple datacenter setup.  (ie copy over the static pages to the different datacenters.)

*shrug*