On Jun 18, 2006, at 9:40 AM, askel wrote: > I'd handle static content by web server itself without involving > pylons. This is what most web servers can do better than pylons' > static > content handler.
I'm inclined to agree to an extent, though I typically find it more convenient to use the static content handler. A significant advantage using Pylons with the static handler is that you can have multiple static handlers in the Cascade giving you the equivalent of multiple document roots (something impossible in most every webserver I've used). The Static content handler also uses ETag's and If-Modified headers which means its only going to send static content that the browser hasn't previously loaded, this can make it very very fast especially compared to a web server that doesn't use ETag headers. Cheers, Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
