forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <>
Subject Re: Forrest: dynamic or static?
Date Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:47:48 GMT
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:49:40AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> ...
> >Being a Cocoon distribution, there is a huge amount of stuff that Forrest
> >*could* include.  I think we need to draw a line, define what Forrest
> >actually is, and stick to that.
> May I disagree?

Certainly, if you back it up :)

> IMO limiting the scope too much does not bring benefits.
> >The line I propose is that Forrest should be regarded as an offline site
> >generation tool that happens to have an online mode for rapid page
> >development.  There should be no features _unusable_ from a static site.
> >For especially useful features, like searching, we can bend the rule and
> >have online/offline equivalents (lucene and google).
> Let me bend this a bit.
> Forrest should be targetted *mainly* as an offline feneration tool, 
> making it possible to use almost all features even without a live Cocoon 
> running.

"mainly".. "almost all".. weasel words! :)  It's better to take the risk
of being wrong than hedge every sentence like a politician..

> But this doesn't mean that we should in any way forget about those that 
> use it live and not cater for them in any way.

We don't cater for them in any way currently.  As of 0.5, Forrest has no
features that rely on it being online.  Certainly if there's online
features that would benefit most of our users (like searching), we can
consider adding it.

What I'm against adding are features that perhaps 5% of Forrest users
want, that require a live Cocoon.  Looking in the Cocoon samples, there
are *hundreds* of features falling in this category.  We need to have
some guidelines or Forrest will end up a bloated mess, trying to be
everything to everyone.

> >I can demonstrate why I take such a hardline stance with a small
> >benchmark:
> ...
> >1.2s per request (excluding warmup) is pathetic.  By comparison, Apache
> >takes 2 MILLISECONDS to serve the same page:
> ...
> >Perhaps we're doing something stupid in our sitemap.  Perhaps Cocoon
> >caching is crap.  Whatever the cause, we're stuck with the result.  I
> >consider online Forrest to be too slow for anything other than
> >development work.
> For now, it surely is. Never say never.
> >So I'd like to narrow Forrest's potential scope to *just* those features
> >that can be expressed in HTML.  We get the best of Cocoon (sitemap
> >expressivity) while leaving out the worst (performance, overhead).  This
> >means Forrest will never evolve into some ultimate CMS, but there's
> >enough of those in the world already.
> Lenya is a CMS, and there is no need to reinvent it. You have deleted 
> the pathetic editor attempts I had put in CVS, and I did not say 
> anything about it, because I agree that Forrest must remain focused.

Cool.  Actually at the time I had no thoughts of "focus".  The editor was
just broken and unmaintained.

> So +1 to keep an eye to "static" and "Apache-friendly" Forrest.
> -1 to crippling its ability to do the same in "live" mode, as that's how 
> most intranets use it.

..and how people use it to develop pages, so of course.


> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi         
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

View raw message