> 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
