incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [www] html instead of markdown (mdtext)?
Date Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:38:37 GMT
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Terry Ellison <> wrote:
> Rob,
> I support your general point.  Using static HTML files to achieve might have
> been a sound argument in the 1990s, but it isn't really credible with today
> platform technologies.  What are the transactional rates for the Apache
> site?  How many requests per second even just roughly?
> Taking your example of the MediaWiki engine, this is scaled to meet the
> transactional and data volume demand of, one of the busiest
> websites on the planet. (There are typically ~100 updates per second and
> goodness know how many pageviews.)  See
> and the few dozen subsidiary pages.  There are many high performance caching
> products that address this issue -- Apache even does one:
> -- and the mediaWiki engine already
> integrates with a couple of the leaders: Squid and Varnish.
> Apache's "heartland" is its "number one HTTP server on the Internet".  Are
> we rally saying that the best way to manage content is through static HTML
> files?  This is just daft IHMO.  Has anyone ever heard of current CMS
> technology.

If you read the thread, it started by a suggestion from me that we use
the wiki as the main website.  Than Gavin said the main website must
be served (not necessarily managed) as static HTML.  I asked why.
Shane said it was for performance reasons.  I said that caching should
be able to handle that.

So I don't think you and I disagree on this point.  If you think you
do, then you'll need to try harder to explain it. I certainly am not
disagreeing with you.  Unless I misunderstood you ;-)

> How many content editors and contributors can read HTML these days?
> One other point: yes SVN or any equivalent versioning repository can store
> most types of content, but versioning should take place at the highest level
> of abstraction and language that the content providers work in.  Take an
> extreme example to emphasise this point.  svn can store object modules, but
> does this mean that we should use these are the master control and
> disassemble back to assembly code to update programs.  Of course not.  But
> to many editors, HTML is little more that binary machine code.
> Non-functional (infrastructure) requirements help drive the design and
> implementation cycles but they shouldn't unnecessarily limit the true
> functional requirements of the system.  To do so is madness.  Is is really
> an approach Apache wants to advocate?
> Regards
> Terry
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Shane Curcuru<>
>>  wrote:
>>> (To provide a little context while Gav may be asleep)
>>> On 8/12/2011 9:26 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Gavin McDonald<>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kay Schenk<>
>>> ...snip snip snip...
>>>>>> Just a thought:  Could you do the entire website in MediaWiki, with
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> exception cases (download page, etc.) done in HTML?
>>>>> Just to put a blocker on this right away, we will not be using the wiki
>>>>> as the
>>>>> main website or the main entrance into the OOo world.
>>>> Since it is not self-evident to me why a wiki would be a problem for
>>>> the main website, could you explain this a little further?  Is there a
>>>> technical problem?  Remember, the wiki already comprises several
>>>> thousand pages of website content, so in a very real sense the "main"
>>>> website is already the wiki.
>>> Performance.  As I understand it, the bulk of all content is
>>> served statically as html files.  Putting a major project's homepage
>>> website
>>> like the future office.a.o (or whatever name) up as a wiki would add a
>>> significant amount of load to our servers, even for a highly efficient
>>> wiki
>>> engine.
>> Thanks, that gives some context.  So "main" in this case is not
>> necessarily only the top level page, i.e., an eventually
>> or the current    Certainly
>> those pages would be some of the most highly-trafficked pages.  But we
>> probably have some others that are also, FAQ's,  Release notes,
>> download page, etc.
>> But that still leaves the long tail of the thousands of other pages
>> that are individually accessed rarely, but may add up to significant
>> load.
>> I'm surprised there is no caching mechanism for MediaWiki to simply
>> write out up static versions of pages and then invalidate the cache
>> for a particular page when it is changed.  In theory you could have
>> the rarely-changed pages be just as efficient as static HTML.  Plugins
>> exist that do this for WordPress, for example.
>>> The beauty of the CMS is that while it's easy to work on the pages
>>> (either
>>> via SVN or browser), the final result is simply checked into SVN and then
>>> the resulting .html file is just stuck on the production webserver site.
>>>  Some projects use a wiki to manage their homepages (i.e. project.a.o,
>>> separate from any community wiki they may have), but the physical
>>> homepage
>>> that end-users see is typically static html that's been exported from
>>> their
>>> wiki site.
>>> Gav or infra folk can provide more details, but you should plan on
>>> adhering
>>> to whatever performance restrictions the infra team requires for the main
>>> website.
>>> - Shane

View raw message