5 ms·
Yep, I wanted to avoid building in a web server into the static site generator, since it complicates that product. The cache server definitely adds complexity
by marcuskaz 12y ago
Yep, I wanted to avoid building in a web server into the static site generator, since it complicates that product.
The cache server definitely adds complexity and more so than a static site. However the complexity is setup and done once on initial server setup. On-going, the multi-process of a site generator adds up. Granted its one small step which as you say most already have scripted tasks.
Answering the first comment, the use case was something to play with for my personal site which I wanted to share if others found useful.
- Argorak 12y agoIt especially adds something that I have to run. Nowadays, I can just push a static site to S3 and am done. Considering that most programming languages ship with a good webserver for serving static content already, I don't see how it makes the product that much more complex. Coming from another angle: now I have a webserver that renders markdown ;).
- rhythmvs 12y agoI had a look at your website and you write about interesting topics. I’d like to keep track of that. It appears, before the rebuild, you had a feed @ http://mkaz.com/rss.xml http://mkaz.com/rss.xml — which is gone. I guess the Lanyon web server doesn’t generate atom or RSS feeds out-of-the-box? That’d be a pity, while a Web based on Markdown+Git+WebSocket (or something alike) still is a long shot…