Re: Funky caching

On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:46 AM, Jesse Lawrence wrote:

> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:23 AM, Jesse Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> I am working on Roberto De Almeida's funky caching implementation in 
>>> an attempt to fully integrate it with pyblosxom, handling newly 
>>> posted comments and all.  It is my opinion (for what it's worth) 
>>> that this should be the one and only static rendering mechanism for 
>>> pyblosxom, because it's automatic (behind the scenes) and fairly 
>>> elegant.
>>
>> There are other reasons for static rendering other than performance, 
>> namely security and access privileges.  If you use static rendering, 
>> not funky caching, you don't have to worry about security because 
>> there is no server-side code in your blog (ignoring comments for now, 
>> you could "outsource" that as pycs does).  Also, you don't need 
>> permission to run server-side code to deploy a purely statically 
>> rendered blog.
>>
> So we're back to the days of uploading a bunch of files to our 
> webserver everytime we want new content?

Sure, why not?  You could have a local daemon that monitored your data 
dir (say, via kqueue or equivalent).  When it sees something change, it 
performs a static render, and then does rsync over ssh (or whatever) to 
get it up to your web host(s).  It doesn't have to be much different 
from a user's perspective than it is now.

-bob



-------------------------------------------------------
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/