jayce at lug-nut.com
Fri Oct 5 08:36:01 MDT 2007
On 10/5/07, Wade Preston Shearer <lists at wadeshearer.com> wrote:
> > I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now
> > automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file,
> > which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later
> > threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your
> > server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML
> > derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under
> > reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads?
> My dislike for MT is not how it serves pages. Obviously static files
> are less of a load on the server and can be served faster. My issue
> is not with the end-user experience; it is how annoying it is to the
> developer and blogger. Developing a custom skin was a nightmare,
> having to republish every single time I wanted to test something
So the whole problem is in devloping a skin? Just do as the docs recommend
then, turn on dynamic publishing/no caching while editing your theme, then
turn it back on.
Or link them to files, or edit statically, commit when done.
I like the method, I serve normal files all static. As if my stuff gets
read enough to even care about being dynamic. Anything I'm editing is
dynamic, only I see it as such. Life is good, and I haven't even bothered
setting up mod_perl rendering or fun stuff like that.
More information about the PLUG