Re: Patch for simple walk caching

Hi, Will.

I'm using static rendering on my weblog, and it works fine (as in "no
errors"). I created a "build(url)" method that renders a given URL
when necessary; my pyblosxom.cgi script is also hacked to build the
pages when a 404 is given, so that, effectively, static pages are
built only when requested.

The method is described here:

    http://dealmeida.net/en/colophon.html

Roberto

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:19:25 -0600 (CST), will guaraldi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Bill Mill wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd rather re-factor what we have than patch the core with what you're
> >> doing now.
> >
> > You're the boss; the nice thing about what I've done is that Ted can
> > drop it into his site and get a nice speedup, and it should work with
> > what he's got installed already.
> >
> > In the future, I agree that we should refactor everything to use what
> > you've done. If we can get it to work well, it'll be much more elegant
> > than what I have done. I still see problems, for example, in getting the
> > correct comment count with update_static_entry. How do you determine
> > accurately which files need it? For example, all the /keyword/*.html
> > files would need to be updated on my blog.
> >
> > With my changes, you don't need to worry about that, because the
> > comments plugin still handles counting the comments in cb_prepare.
> 
> Well, I don't know about being the boss.  My use cases are definitely not
> comprehensive enough for me to assume that I know where pyblosxom should
> go.
> 
> Going back a bit, I said that the static rendering was half-assed.  One of
> the reasons I said that was the update_static_entry stuff wasn't
> integrated into anything that would need it.  Additionally, it may not
> even work as it might have edge cases that are not desirable.
> 
> For example, as you note, it doesn't really work with the way you use
> pyblosxom.
> 
> One of the goals for refactoring was to add the ability to do index
> caching which is very much like your file list caching except I want to
> add to that caching of filestat and other meta data.  Though I'm not
> really sure how that works yet.
> 
> I think that'd join nicely with the things you're doing right now.
> 
> 
> > The difference is that most plugins will still run normally. Only the
> > few plugins which use fileinfo or pathinfo would need to be changed;
> > comments and trackback, among others, should remain unaffected.
> 
> I see where you're coming from now.  Yeah, static rendering is good for
> some things, but would be a total pain in the ass for others.  I'm not
> even sure it really works well except for simpler blogs that don't have
> much interaction.
> 
> /will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Pyblosxom-devel mailing list
> Pyblosxom-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyblosxom-devel
> 


-- 
Roberto De Almeida <[email protected]>
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] nonsense


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/