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

Reply via email to