Re: HTML_Template_IT

Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: >On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:00:31 +0200 >bmansion@mamasam.com (Bertrand Mansion) wrote: > >> Yes, but that's my opinion only. I guess Pierre-Alain will have a >> different opinion as he maintains HTML_Template_IT/ITX. :) > >Yup :) > >> If you use HTML_Template_Sigma and your site has lots of visits, >> make sure you have a look at the preprocess feature. This is >> described in the documentation. > >Well, that's the main difference. We have a different vision about >where should be the cache :). High traffic site obviously requires >cache (not only them btw ;) ), but caching the parsed template is >not sufficient, mixing cache everywhere is not a good idea and not >consistent. > >That was my idea. Static contents being the best way, when it's >possible (and use IT to generate it once :D). Caching the parsed template is interesting when you need dynamic content and you don't know when this dynamic content is going to change. That's what HTML_Template_Sigma does, at least if you want to use this optional feature. Other than that, I can only agree with you. Serving .html is faster :) Bertrand Mansion Mamasam