<p>In my opinion it's a good, easy and fast way to caching content. We use similar solutions on different Websites and it works perfect for us. Maybe you should do a more specific flagging to avoid deleting all cached entries at once. And you should take care about possible dynamic code parts like forms.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-16T13:41:23.083Z
Thanks for the feedback! Have you had any issues with image transforms in your caching approach?
mjr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-17T07:25:36.543Z
Jep, we had once some issues with image transforms. We used generateTransformsBeforePageLoad => true in our general config and sometimes (not traceable) the image transform was not created. Changing back to the default generateTransformsBeforePageLoad  => false fixed this problem. The Craft caching is clever and stores the cache only if no temporary transform url is in the content.
Tom Bauer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-15T09:56:03.567Z
2016-06-15T21:02:04.097Z
2016-06-15T21:02:04.097Z
Tom Bauer
<p>I've been thinking about creating the simplest possible cache solution and would like to know if this is a worthwhile option.</p>

<p>Using the outstanding <a href="https://github.com/mmikkel/CacheFlag-Craft">cacheflag</a> plugin, I place the entire layout wrapper template inside these tags:</p>

<pre><code>{% cacheflag flagged "content" globally using key craft.request.path %}
 ... lots o code....
{% endcacheflag %}
</code></pre>

<p>In the back end, I flag each of the section with a "content" flag.</p>

<p>I think by doing this, each url should have it's own cache file. And all caches are cleared whenever a new entry is posted.</p>

<p>Granted it may a bit of a sledgehammer style solution, but if traffic is average it could perhaps be effective?</p>

<p>Is my understanding correct or is this a bad idea?</p>

<cache>
Is caching the layout wrapper template a viable option?
# Is caching the layout wrapper template a viable option?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-14)

I've been thinking about creating the simplest possible cache solution and would like to know if this is a worthwhile option.
Using the outstanding cacheflag plugin, I place the entire layout wrapper template inside these tags:
{% cacheflag flagged "content" globally using key craft.request.path %}
 ... lots o code....
{% endcacheflag %}

In the back end, I flag each of the section with a "content" flag.
I think by doing this, each url should have it's own cache file. And all caches are cleared whenever a new entry is posted.
Granted it may a bit of a sledgehammer style solution, but if traffic is average it could perhaps be effective?
Is my understanding correct or is this a bad idea?

**Tags:** cache

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-06-15. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

In my opinion it's a good, easy and fast way to caching content. We use similar solutions on different Websites and it works perfect for us. Maybe you should do a more specific flagging to avoid deleting all cached entries at once. And you should take care about possible dynamic code parts like forms.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the feedback! Have you had any issues with image transforms in your caching approach?  
> **username_1**: Jep, we had once some issues with image transforms. We used generateTransformsBeforePageLoad => true in our general config and sometimes (not traceable) the image transform was not created. Changing back to the default generateTransformsBeforePageLoad  => false fixed this problem. The Craft caching is clever and stores the cache only if no temporary transform url is in the content.  

---

