forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <>
Subject Re: Forrest: dynamic or static?
Date Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:34:35 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi dijo:
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi         
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

View raw message