> Fair enough. I shouldn't have said "lousy performance of the
> framework itself" when I should have included the application. If the
> application's page computations are so lengthy, then they too need
> speeding up.
>
> We've got a situation where some big sites (Slashdot, Wikipedia) have
>
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Fancy frameworks do use caching, but I think of that as a kludgy
> > workaround for lousy performance of the framework itself. A fast
> > framework should not need caching, except maybe caching gzip output
> > for large blocks of contiguous text.
> The
Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>a wise person you are. I've often thought that most of the pages
>>generated by web frameworks (except for active pages) should be cached
>>once rendered.
>
>
> Fancy frameworks do use caching, but I think of that as a klud
"Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a wise person you are. I've often thought that most of the pages
> generated by web frameworks (except for active pages) should be cached
> once rendered.
Fancy frameworks do use caching, but I think of that as a kludgy
workaround for lousy perfor
Fuzzyman wrote:
>
> Because it is client side (rather than running on the server), it has
> no built in comments facility. I use Haloscan for comments, but I'm
> always on the look out for a neat comments system to integrate with
> Firedrop.
>
> I personally prefer the 'client side' approach, as
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 19:28 +0200, Irmen de Jong wrote:
> Cliff Wells wrote:
> > I'm currently using Frog, and it's decent, but lacks some fundamental
> > features (tags for one). Since Irmen is probably going to scrap it
> > anyway, I'm kind of fishing about for something new.
>
> That is not re
Cliff Wells wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 08:22 -0700, Fuzzyman wrote:
> > Cliff Wells wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 00:29 -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyone aware of any functional (doesn't need to be complete, beta is
> > > > fine) blog software written in Python?
> > >
> > > H
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 08:22 -0700, Fuzzyman wrote:
> Cliff Wells wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 00:29 -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone aware of any functional (doesn't need to be complete, beta is
> > > fine) blog software written in Python?
> >
> > Hmph. And as soon as I hit send I fi
Hi,
There is a blog demo in Karrigell : http://karrigell.sourceforge.net
There is a project called KarriBlog aiming to offer a more complete
application, it's still beta but you can see it working on this site
(in French) : http://www.salvatore.exolia.net/site
Regards,
Pierre
--
http://mail.py
Cliff Wells wrote:
> I'm currently using Frog, and it's decent, but lacks some fundamental
> features (tags for one). Since Irmen is probably going to scrap it
> anyway, I'm kind of fishing about for something new.
That is not really true. I won't "scrap" Frog. One of the reasons
would be that I'
Cliff Wells wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 00:29 -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
>
> > Anyone aware of any functional (doesn't need to be complete, beta is
> > fine) blog software written in Python?
>
> Hmph. And as soon as I hit send I find
>
> http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonBlogSoftware
>
> Okay,
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 00:29 -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> Anyone aware of any functional (doesn't need to be complete, beta is
> fine) blog software written in Python?
Hmph. And as soon as I hit send I find
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonBlogSoftware
Okay, so is there any *not* on that lis
There's been a lot of blogs started in Python, but given the recent
spate of web frameworks, I'm surprised that some blogging package hasn't
taken front seat yet.
I'm currently using Frog, and it's decent, but lacks some fundamental
features (tags for one). Since Irmen is probably going to scrap
13 matches
Mail list logo
