From: Gavin C. <ga...@op...> - 2011-04-05 13:58:13
|
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 12:47:01PM +0200, Gustaf Erikson wrote: >2011/4/5 Axel Beckert <ab...@de...>: >>> FWIW, I'm working on a blosxom-3-like-thing at the moment, but it's a >>> complete rewrite, rather than a fork. It's also static-only, rather than >>> mixed static/dynamic. > >> Anyway, despite I'd be happyu to see blosxom working with mod_perl or >> FastCGI, I still prefer static generation. Unfortunately many blosxom >> plugins (my tagging plugin included, unfortunately) do not support >> static generation. >> >Interestingly enough there was a flurry of blog posts about >"pre-baked" (statically rendered) websites just a couple of weeks ago. >I've been running blosxom statically for years ever since it >threatened to swamp my host and now that I have comments via Disqus >I'm not missing anything by not having dynamic rendering. Yeah, that was exactly my thinking too - core functionality static and lightweight, additional dynamic functionality via javascript. >>> It keeps text-based posts, hooks and plugins, flavours and themes, and >>> generally has a pretty similar structure to blosxom. And so far it adds >>> config files and built-in pagination to the core. >> >> Sounds neat. Any backwards-compatibility to blosxom flavours or plugins? > >I'm interested too. It's been a while since I messed around with the blog ;) > >For me the must-have plugins are Markdown and entriescache. Yep, me too. The default statik entries plugin provides entriescache-like functionality (i.e. cached mtimes and header-overrideable dates). Cheers, Gavin |