On 10/5/07, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now > > automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file, > > which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later > > threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your > > server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML > > derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under > > reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads? > > My dislike for MT is not how it serves pages. Obviously static files > are less of a load on the server and can be served faster. My issue > is not with the end-user experience; it is how annoying it is to the > developer and blogger. Developing a custom skin was a nightmare, > having to republish every single time I wanted to test something
So the whole problem is in devloping a skin? Just do as the docs recommend then, turn on dynamic publishing/no caching while editing your theme, then turn it back on. Or link them to files, or edit statically, commit when done. TIMTOWTDI I like the method, I serve normal files all static. As if my stuff gets read enough to even care about being dynamic. Anything I'm editing is dynamic, only I see it as such. Life is good, and I haven't even bothered setting up mod_perl rendering or fun stuff like that. -- Jayce^ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
