Jonathan is right. That sentence is also a relic of older version of the manual when routes was not very well tested. I will correct or move those statements.
On Aug 8, 4:48 pm, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 2010, at 2:35 PM, mwolfe02 wrote: > > > > > According to the web2py book, routes.py should not be used in > > production environment (http://web2py.com/book/default/chapter/04? > > search=lighttpd). Instead, Apache/lighttpd web server rewrite is > > suggested. > > > I assumed this was due to some overhead that using routes.py would > > incur. However, massimo's response in this post from January (http:// > > groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_thread/thread/39e72dc4a68f33a1) > > seems to suggest that's not the case. His response to the question, > > Why is routes.py not preferred? "No reason. No overhead." > > > If that's the case, then that's great news. I would much rather > > rewrite my urls inside web2py. > > > If there is overhead involved, how does it compare to whatever > > overhead may be involved with Django's urls.py? Is there a > > fundamental difference between how the two frameworks implement url > > rewriting (other than the fact that it is required in Django and > > optional in web2py)? > > The reason (I think) is that Apache can serve certain static files and the > like directly, without invoking web2py at all. It's not the overhead of using > routes.py; it's the overhead of having web2py serve stuff that it doesn't > need to. > > There might be more to it than that.
