I disagree. While WSGI is certainly interesting for the future, it makes deployment more complex by introducing more software. We must still support non-WSGI scenarios with the same level of functionality at least for a few more releases. So my vote is -1 on having this functionality on WSGI middleware only.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14.08.2008, at 13:52, Malthe Borch wrote: > >> Plone should probably only name the resources that the browser needs to >> render the HTML document and leave it to WSGI middleware to optimize that, >> e.g. >> >> * Rebase to other hostnames >> * Concatenate >> * File-size reduction > > that sounds really good to me. > > i take it, though, that it's understood that this doesn't affect the > acceptance of plip 232 but simply that it means we shouldn't invest too much > into 'pimping' the registries themselves but rather put future efforts into > middle ware. > > right? > > cheers, > > tom > >> >> >> \malthe >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Framework-Team mailing list >> Framework-Team@lists.plone.org >> http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Framework-Team mailing list > Framework-Team@lists.plone.org > http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team > -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems http://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214 _______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team