4 ms·
If only for testing I would agree with whitenoise, but in case of startup and you are already serving static files why do you want to replace NGINX with Whiteno
by tuyguntn 11y ago
If only for testing I would agree with whitenoise, but in case of startup and you are already serving static files why do you want to replace NGINX with Whitenoise? any specific reason for Whitenoise, maybe it is better/simpler/efficient than NGINX?
- zallarak 11y agoGood question. We were not using nginx to begin with (rather, serving it through our app server). It was an alternative to nginx and is super easy to set up: https://github.com/evansd/whitenoise#quickstart-for-other-wsgi-apps https://github.com/evansd/whitenoise#quickstart-for-other-ws...
- tuyguntn 11y agoIf you are using python code for serving static files, probably you are not seeing lots of traffic yet, I guess you should reconsider your decision and watch "Simple made Easy"[1] talk by Rich Hickey [1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
- danneu 11y agoLooks like Whitenoise can gzip your assets, add a hash to the filename, serve them with far-future headers, and then selectively serve the gzipped version based on Accept-Encoding headers. Put that behind Cloudflare and your origin server is only hit when an edge location is warming its cache. Sounds Hickey-tier simple to me, especially compared to your advice of "just use and configure Nginx".
- carapace 11y agohttps://pypi.python.org/pypi/whitenoise#infrequently-asked-questions https://pypi.python.org/pypi/whitenoise#infrequently-asked-q...