Great! I was hoping to do my rewrites in web2py for all the same reasons Vasile mentioned.
As to Jonathan's point about serving static files, I am using webfaction to host my site and the best practice there is to serve static files from a dedicated nginx server whose sole purpose is to serve static files. Thanks to all for the information. On Aug 8, 6:45 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > Jonathan is right. That sentence is also a relic of older version of > the manual when routes was not very well tested. I will correct or > move those statements. > > On Aug 8, 4:48 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 8, 2010, at 2:35 PM, mwolfe02 wrote: > > > > According to the web2py book, routes.py should not be used in > > > production environment (http://web2py.com/book/default/chapter/04? > > > search=lighttpd). Instead, Apache/lighttpd web server rewrite is > > > suggested. > > > > I assumed this was due to some overhead that using routes.py would > > > incur. However, massimo's response in this post from January (http:// > > > groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_thread/thread/39e72dc4a68f33a1) > > > seems to suggest that's not the case. His response to the question, > > > Why is routes.py not preferred? "No reason. No overhead." > > > > If that's the case, then that's great news. I would much rather > > > rewrite my urls inside web2py. > > > > If there is overhead involved, how does it compare to whatever > > > overhead may be involved with Django's urls.py? Is there a > > > fundamental difference between how the two frameworks implement url > > > rewriting (other than the fact that it is required in Django and > > > optional in web2py)? > > > The reason (I think) is that Apache can serve certain static files and the > > like directly, without invoking web2py at all. It's not the overhead of > > using routes.py; it's the overhead of having web2py serve stuff that it > > doesn't need to. > > > There might be more to it than that.
