Honestly the only time it has any benefit is when you're using filesystem cache and haven't specified a custom cache path. Any other handler and internally it makes no difference.

I think it's better to change the button itself on language level.
The Delete all per site or Admin makes it possible for to choose what to clear.

Yes, now we have a UX problem.
So I would suggest to make the button based on the selected filter, then you will get "Delete All Site" and "Delete All Admin" depending on the selected filter.

The button currently deletes based on the filter that is the usability
problem!!

I don't see the problem with the function itself.
I only see a language problem.
If the button states that it Clears the Site part when the filter is on Site, then the user knows exactly what is does.

See the screens for what I mean.

What is the usability benefit for having the cache split into two views?

Is there even any reasons for the admin to be cached at all?

When using tools like RSFirewall you want the black and whitelist to be cached, do the checks will go much faster. Because it's a administrator tool, it's cached in that part as you can see in the screen.

1. I dont care about extensions only core (and anyway this site/admin filter was only introduced in 3.6)
2. That doesnt explain why you need to cache anything in the admin at all
3. That doesnt resolve the usability issue that on an update of joomla we tell people to update the cache and right now they are a) mistakenly only cleaning the cache for the site not the admin and b) have to do three extra clicks when it just isnt needed.

On 23 July 2016 at 13:28, Wilco Alsemgeest notifications@github.com wrote:

When using tools like RSFirewall you want the black and whitelist to be
cached, do the checks will go much faster. Because it's a administrator

tool, it's cached in that part as you can see in the screen.

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application
https://github.com/joomla/jissues at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/11195
https://issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/11195.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#11195 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPH8UjkOKsOaocdASZlkHbKxBfQddbXks5qYfrxgaJpZM4JPi6V
.

Brian Teeman
Co-founder Joomla! and OpenSourceMatters Inc.
http://brian.teeman.net/

@brianteeman
Please see and test PR #11286

But it should be discussed if we really need 2 cache folders in Joomla core. I compared FE cache with BE cache and it looks like some folders are redundant like com_plugins.

The filesystem cache uses a JPATH_CACHE path which is relative to each application. I have no idea when that started or why, but IMO there isn't a need to differentiate cache in this way. With that said, yes there are valid reasons to cache data in the admin separately from the site, but with proper cache ID generation having different folders is a non-issue (and one that only exists now in the filesystem adapter; other caching adapters don't have this separation between applications).

Closed as we have a PR