# ActiveSupport::Cache vs. others?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/activesupport-cache-vs-others/159996>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [February 10, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/activesupport-cache-vs-others/159996 "2009-02-10T20:50:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![marcbey](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@marcbey](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/marcbey)\
**Post date:** [February 10, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/activesupport-cache-vs-others/159996/1 "2009-02-10T20:50:36Z")

</div>

Hi,

We are building and using a new caching gem. We would like to figure  
out  
how to make this most friendly and easy for both existing projects and  
new  
projects to use. I’m guessing the best way to get used in new projects  
would be via subclassing the ActiveSupport::Cache::Store class? Is this  
expected to be the primary way to use a cache going forward?

What about gems that may be widely used in existing projects like  
cached\_fu,  
memcached, etc. ? Are these expected to be rolled in through  
ActiveSupport::Cache over time?

If you had to chose one cache interface to speak (e.g. drop-in  
replacement,  
small constructor diff only, or config diff only), which one would you  
suggest? And if only two, which two?

Thanks,

Marc