On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:26 AM, julian.bash wrote: > > Thanks a lot for your answers! > > The even greater thing with funky caching is that the webserver only > has to serve html (if there is a cached version) and doesn't have to > run django. So, django's normal caching is good, but when the server > only has to serve already-generated html-files, the whole thing would > be even faster. If you know the Rails-blog Mephisto, it does exactly > this. > > Julian >
I understand what you are asking now. But maybe there are other ways to get there. option A: What if you had a webserver running django at place A and a desire to serve pages from location B. You could use a tool like wget to recursively mirror your site from A to B. Then run a webserver pointing at B and blammo "cached", static pages from relatively un- dynamic content. option B: using some piece of Django, I think likely a custom middleware, output a copy of the requested page to a pre-determined section of the filesystem. Then have a piece of middleware that serves those static pages over dynamic ones. I happen to like A because it means almost no changes to the site, you get a mirror of the data so this scales to really big sites, etc. It also means almost no code has to be written. Something like this has been discussed on this lists several months ago (like maybe 6), sorry I do not remember all of the options discussed. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
