On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Tobias McNulty <tob...@caktusgroup.com> wrote: > What's the argument against serving the original files directly?
It means that when you add new apps you have to update your Apache/Nginx/whatever config. Back in the day (pre-open-source), every time you added an app you had to edit your Apache config, and we *never* remembered that step because it's just such a totally non-intuitive thing to do. Ideally, your web server should know as little about your app as possible. That is, deployment tends to be easier to closer to a black box your app becomes. Anyway, though, we're getting off topic here -- if there's a way to make staticfiles pluggable to the point that this sort of deployment is possible, that's great and I'd love to see some ideas. > Ah, so realistically we should put all our media in 'static/<appname>', like > for templates, if we want to avoid conflicts with other apps. Would that be > worth mentioning as a convention in the docs so we don't end up with a bunch > of reusable apps that aren't at all reusable? Dang it, I'd put this point in my outline and *thought* I put it in the docs. But I didn't. Yes, a note to that effect (and/or an example) would be the right thing to do. I'll add it when I get a chance. Jacob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
