3 ms·
Sure. However, the method I mentioned can be done with zero extra server load if done correctly. I've done this before with other editors, and it definitely di
by illumen 12y ago
Sure.
However, the method I mentioned can be done with zero extra server load if done correctly. I've done this before with other editors, and it definitely did not take a team 12 months to complete.
It is a full stack optimisation however, from UI all the way through the DB and the rest of the stack. Now that they're using only 10% load, there's plenty of room to breath.
Saving a draft of what someone may have spend hours typing into a crash prone browser is good UI practice regardless.
- RobAley 12y agoAgain, "full stack optimisations" cost money, if there's not the money to throw more machines against it (which is often, though not always, cheaper than dev time) then there's not likely to be the money for extensive dev time either. Saving a draft is indeed good UI practice, but best practice is never "regardless" in the real world, particularly in cash/manpower strapped non-profits.
- illumen 12y agoThere was over a year of dev time effort put into this optimisation by a team of people. I think the effort of my optimisation would cost less time and effort, and give better results. It would also waste less Editor time. Mediawiki already allows drafts to be saved.