On 07/25/10 10:30, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
"beebee" == beebee<[email protected]> writes:
Hi,
>> for i in `find /var/www -name \*.html' -o -name '*.css' -o -name '*.js'`;
>> do
>> gzip -c -9< $i> $i.gz
>> done
>>
>> Would work for most people.
>>
>> -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard
beebee> correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the BB goal was light and fast
beebee> rather than "simple". Missing out some of the less used options in
std
beebee> tools is presumably to lighten the footprint , not to make things
beebee> simple.
Simple is imho also a very large part of it.
beebee> while it may take a few lines more code to check and maintain a cache
beebee> the runtime overhead would be minimal compared to the overhead of
beebee> gzipping files each and every time they are requested.
But the point of my implementation is NOT to gzip for every request,
only once manually when a file is added/edited.
Yes I realised that, I was continuing from my earlier observation that
it may make more sense to adopt the lighttpd approach to this and do the
gzip to cache once.
This would seem to imply a trivial amount of extra code and would avoid
the need to "find".
What is the slowdown overhead going to be doing that find command for
every single request if the directory has a lot of files. This may well
be the case and cannot be precluded.
I'm not knocking your idea , I already said I thinks it's a good
addition , so worth getting it implemented in the best way.
It just feels a bit unfinished to expect the user to maintain gz files
manually on each update of the source file. He also has to be made aware
of how this feature works to insure he does that.
regards.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
