[Repoze-checkins] r611 - www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries

[Tres Seaver]

Author: Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com>
Date: Fri Dec  7 21:59:47 2007
New Revision: 611

Log:
Note that PasteScript already does what we want.

Added:
   www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/highway_jam.txt
      - copied, changed from r610, /www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/faster_application_restart.txt
Removed:
   www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/faster_application_restart.txt

Copied: www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/highway_jam.txt (from r610, /www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/faster_application_restart.txt)
==============================================================================
--- /www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/faster_application_restart.txt	(original)
+++ www/trunk/blog.repoze.org/entries/highway_jam.txt	Fri Dec  7 21:59:47 2007
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
    We discussed, and then discarded, the idea of trying to fix Python's
    reload story:  it seems just too painful and error-prone (like the
    <code>refresh.txt</code> story in Zope).  Instead, we realized that
-   making restarting the application go <bold>really</bold> fast would
+   making restarting the application go <strong>really</strong> fast would
    be a big win:  this observation was highlighted especially by the
    restart-inducde delays during the demos we did at UNc and CPCC.
 </p>
@@ -38,13 +38,10 @@
      any of
      <code> [getattr(x, '__file__', None) for x in sys.modules.values()]</code>
      changes.  Can we somehow arrange for the triggering request to be
-     retried after the restart?  Does it matter?
- </li>
-
- <li>
-     We should definitely tie into the support which
-     <code>paste --reloadr</code>
-     had for auto-restart.
+     retried after the restart?  Does it matter?<br />
+     
+     Hmm, it looks like this is what <code>paste --reloadr</code>
+     does already.  Cool. Score that: <strong>NIH, 0;  Ian Rocks!, 1</strong>
  </li>
 
 </ul>