search

cloudhead / toto

the 10 second blog-engine for hackers
MIT License
1.49k stars 245 forks source link

[low priority] Genrate static website #99

Closed ixti closed 12 years ago

ixti commented 13 years ago

This is just crazy (and probably useless) idea. Toto based website is in fact basically static, so we can have a special rake task which will generate "static" version of website, so that would be possible to use with almost any hosting platform :)) and with gh-pages of github as well.

guidoism commented 13 years ago

I don't think that this is crazy at all. I think toto is awesome, but it does seem really weird that it doesn't do this by default. It makes a lot of sense to generate a static website and publish it onto s3.

AndrewVos commented 13 years ago

You could write up a script to do this in a few minutes with ruby or bash even.

ixti commented 13 years ago

@AndrewVos well, it is. I can't say it's a few minutes task. But I agree it can be easily written. Basically it was some kind of rfc in order to determine for myself is it a good idea or not. Now I know that I'm not the only one who was thinking about it :))

benjamincharity commented 12 years ago

This sounds like an amazing idea. Publishing a toto site to S3 would definitely be my preference! I'll be watching!

AndrewVos commented 12 years ago

Why not just use a static site generator then? There's like ten million if them? Try octopress.

On 19 Oct 2011, at 05:08, Benjamin Charity reply@reply.github.com wrote:

This sounds like an amazing idea. Publishing a toto site to S3 would definitely be my preference! I'll be watching!

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cloudhead/toto/issues/99#issuecomment-2451856

ixti commented 12 years ago

I can't say for everyone, but I feel two opposite feelings about such static generators. So first I would like to anser Andrew's question... I don't want to use Jekyll, because I don't like it's structure. To be honest now I realize that I want a little bit different structure of files even for toto (and I'll repspect my wish in my own blog if I'll have time to sit down and write it) - I can surf them without web and as I use my blog mostly to write down things I don't want to forget - that's pretty useful for me (to have good structure, which is goodlooking as well :)).

Why I might want static site generator? Because it would be possible to deploy static website on any hosting and it will be just faster than anything. On another hand I might want to still have dynamic site and it seems easier to me to modify such code.

After all right now I relized, that either I'm pregnant, or probably got sick. I can't decide what I like more :)) static site seems to me good solution because it requires only plain HTTP server, so it cn be hosted anywhere. Dynamic site seems to me good solution because it fun and keeps directory clean (out of compiled things and so on)...

So, I guess, after all I think that static site generator is good thing. So providing an easy way to call precompiler will be nice thing :)) But I don't think it will be implemented in toto :)) So closing an issue.

kvervo commented 12 years ago

Even if this issue is closed, i would to say that I've been trying out toto. If toto would generate Static Websites, I will definitely used instead of octopress. Toto is much simpler and nicer to use. So, I definitely in favor of the rake task for static content generation.