ssanbeg wrote:

Although I haven't seen specifics on the performance issues, I reworked the part that I believed to be the most significant bottleneck. If this didn't resolve the issue, please let me know.

le.korrigan wrote:

Thanks.

I can demonstrate the intended use on http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Korrigan/Article1, where the elements of the reference are transcluded from http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Korrigan/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rence , through an appropriate template.

ssanbeg wrote:

Thanks for the example. It wasn't quite intended to be used this way, to transclude different sections from the same page; this would cause a little extra overhead, equivalent to transcluding 4 different templates, instead of the same template 4 times.

If this is an issue, it may help to add some caching. Currently, this isn't done because this was intended to transclude a section from lots of large pages, so caching all of them may not be worth it. Caching the last page used may be a good compromise.

Although it's not up to me, it seems like it should be OK, although some small improvements may help. So unless someone else has an objection, I think you should post a link to a discussion on wikipedia to support this.

le.korrigan wrote:

When you talk about "some improvements", is it about the extension's code or the way I intend to implement it ?

I will talk to people involved with references and (hopefully) get their approval.

le.korrigan wrote:

Ok, a poll has been organised (and advertised on the village pump). Results are here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Sources/Chez_Manon#Mini-sondage . Not many people gave their opinion as this is rather specialised.

So far : 8 support (+ me), none oppose.

ssanbeg wrote:

Seems reasonable. It may help to make a small enhancement to the extension code to include a cache; if things seem to be going forward I'll find time to work on that. You may need to check on IRC (MediaWiki-General) or the wikitech mailing list for other opinions.

jeluf wrote:

Removed "shell" keyword as long as Steve is optimizing the code. Please add the keyword again once the code is optimized and has either Tim's or Brion's approval.

ssanbeg wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

Removed "shell" keyword as long as Steve is optimizing the code. Please add the
keyword again once the code is optimized and has either Tim's or Brion's
approval.

I've replaced the keyword. I added the rest of the caching to the new preprocessor, and Tim rewrote part of the extension to utilize that.

jeluf wrote:

Done.