Re: Static Site Alternative

["Daniel E. Markle" <syntax@ashtech.net>]

On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 10:18:52AM -0700, Aaron D. Turner wrote:
> CPU it's ours.  Chris is also a bit worried that we're taking so long
> (month 4 and counting).

It's only been 4 months?  We are moving faster than I realized.  For a project
this ambitious to be this far along in 4 months is phenomenal.

It does bother me that we are getting hassled so much about how much time it
is taking us, however.  I am getting the feeling that certain people are not
familar with how long it takes to plan out properly and construct sites such
as this, especially when we have at most 5 people planning and coding in their
spare time.  I think we are progressing nicely.  If we are going to get nothing
but flak from these certain people, we have other options.

> site more dynamic will give us a quicker go-live date, let's do it.  If we

I suspect that this would indeed push up our go-live date, as we would only
need to code single pages to handle entire sections, instead of coming up
with the complicated static generation logic.  As such, I would think that
perhaps we should go completely dynamic to get up quickly, then proceed with
getting squid to do caching shortly thereafter.

-- 
-------------------
Daniel E. Markle
syntax@ashtech.net
-------------------