Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <32850.10.0.0.5.1064230475.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 05:34:35 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Forrest: dynamic or static?
From: "Antonio Gallardo" <agallardo@agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
To: <forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <bkm9n2$vd5$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <20030920134413.GE9229@expresso.localdomain>
        <bkm9n2$vd5$1@sea.gmane.org>
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------