good point. but since we're talking about new features i think there
should be more leeway in deciding whether to support the older
technologies or not.
but nevertheless it is a question that needs to be addressed when new
features come along and i certainly didn't mean to imply that we
abandon adding new features to the registries (i.e. the 'too much' in
my original phrasing)
cheers,
tom
On 15.08.2008, at 18:02, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
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
