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