> On 29 Dec 2015, at 01:36, Tim Graham <timogra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to work together with Dave to develop a proof of concept that > integrates whitenoise into Django. I spent about an hour looking through > whitenoise and our own static file serving code, and I think integrating > whitenoise will yield a simpler user experience with about the same amount of > code as have now. > > Essentially, we'd recommend adding something like this to existing wsgi.py > files (it would be in the default startproject template) > > from whitenoise.django import DjangoWhiteNoise > application = DjangoWhiteNoise(application) > application.add_files(settings.MEDIA_ROOT, prefix=settings.MEDIA_URL) > > which would have the benefit of working out of the box in production too, I > think. Of course, you could disable that based on settings.DEBUG or some > other toggle. > > We could then deprecate: > > * django/contrib/staticfiles/views.py > * django/contrib/staticfiles/management/commands/runserver.py > * django/contrib/staticfiles/handlers.py > * django/views/static.py > > Any objections to doing further investigation in this area?
None, this sounds like a great combination and a logical continuation of what I did back then with staticfiles. The fact that staticfiles had all this custom logic to handle file serving in staticfiles was a necessary evil to stay backward compatible and lower the risk of staticfiles becoming a failure -- it wasn’t clear at all if it’d match the workflow for most of Django’s user base (and it still hasn’t completely I think). Whitenoise is agnostic enough about where the served files come from so this fits nicely. > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 8:09:11 AM UTC-4, David Evans wrote: > On Friday, 5 December 2014 19:14:29 UTC, Carl Meyer wrote: > On 12/04/2014 10:33 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I'm pretty interested in getting secure and _somewhat_ efficient static > > file serving in Django. > > > > Quick history: > > 2005 - Jacob commits #428: a "static pages" view. Note that this view > > should only be used for testing!" > > 2010 - Jannis adds staticfiles. Serving via django is considered "grossly > > inefficient and probably insecure". > > 2011 - Graham Dumpleton adds wsgi.file_wrapper to Gunicorn. > > 2012 - Aymeric adds StreamingHttpResponse and now files are read in chunks > > rather than reading the entire file into memory. (No longer grossly > > inefficient IMHO.) > > > > I propose: > > - Deprecate the "show_indexes" parameter of static.serve() (unless people > > actually use it). > > - Have people report security issues to secu...@djangoproject.com (like > > always) > > - Audit the code and possibly add more security checks and tests. > > - add wsgi.file_wrapper support to responses (5-line proof of concept: > > https://github.com/django/django/pull/3650 ) > > - support serving static files in production, but still recommend > > nginx/apache or a cdn for performance. > > - make serving static files in production an opt-in, but put the view in > > project_template/project_name/urls.py > > > > I think it's a huge win for low-traffic sites or sites in the "just trying > > to deploy and get something live" phase. You can always optimize later by > > serving via nginx or cdn. > > We already have the views, api, and logic around for finding and serving > > the correct files. > > We can be just as efficient and secure as static/dj-static without needing > > to make people install and configure wsgi middleware to the application. > > We could have staticfiles classes implement more complicated features like > > giving cache recommendations, and serving pre-gzipped files. > > > > Is this a good idea? I realize it's not totally thought through. I'm fine > > with waiting until 1.9 if needed. > > I also think this is a good plan. It certainly makes sense to look at > "static" and "whitenoise" for ideas and compare their code to ours to > see where we could be more efficient or secure, but it's much less churn > for Django users if we simply improve our existing code rather than pull > in something wholly new. > > Carl > > > > Sorry to revive an old thread here, but I just wanted to add that v2.0 of > WhiteNoise now supports serving development files, providing the same > behaviour as runserver currently does in DEBUG mode. (There were enough > people wanting to do their development using gunicorn rather than runserver > to make this worthwhile.) > > This means that WhiteNoise is now a one-stop-shop for static file handling in > Django. If there's still an appetite for integrating it, or something > equivalent, into core I'd be happy to help out. > > Dave > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/a2136cbb-2dfb-4269-8bb9-64a55f8c7b6a%40googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9395314F-C692-4F9E-A2B5-B6A0BF5610A1%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
