I'm really just trying to refocus on the main point of this being about static site generators and not CMSs.
On Mar 14, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Colin Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > On Mar 14, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Justin Obara <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> "A static site generator written in Node.js could be easily extended with >>> features written using Infusion and other tools we already use every day >>> (e.g. Grunt). Even more interestingly, we might consider the long-term >>> possibility of integrating static site generation features into Kettle, so >>> that developers could easily deploy blended sites that consistent mostly of >>> static HTML but also include JSON feeds or some dynamically-generated pages. >> >> I worry that this could start bringing us back to our heavy maintenance and >> security issues. If the dynamically generated pages are still read only >> (fully controlled by the server without user input from the client) it may >> be okay. Avtar, you're in a better position than I to know if this is a >> legitimate concern. Could you please weigh in on that? > > A static site generator won't do everything for us. I'm suggesting a smooth > path from static sites to light dynamicity when it's needed (and only when). > Can you elaborate on how you think this is any more of a security or > maintenance issue than if we were, say, writing our own custom Drupal modules > from scratch? > > Colin _______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
