Re: Funky caching

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Jesse Lawrence wrote:
> 
> I mean that funky caching just happens, much like the original (at least 
> I thought) idea of Pyblosxom (Blosxom);  you place a file in a 
> directory, and it becomes a blog post.  It just happens.
>
> To me, the current static rendering method (no offense) is contrary to 
> the idea behind Pyblosxom.  Having to run a script after making a new 
> post adds to the effort of posting.

Well, that's not what static rendering is for.  Static rendering solves a 
couple of problems:

1. it allows people to use PyBlosxom who don't have access to CGI.

2. it allows people to statically render a site (note the word "static")
    for people who don't want the interactive portions and have limited
    hardware capabilities.  I have a friend who runs a statically rendered
    blosxom site on a Mac Classic running BSD.

3. it allows people to statically render a site to put on a CD-ROM or
    some other non-HTTP-accessible medium.


Static rendering isn't a cache method in and of itself, though it could be 
used as such--which is what Robert did.

I think working on that aspect is cool.  Just, don't remove the existing 
static rendering functionality.

/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/