For my blog, static files (anything stored in an app's "static" directory, basically[1]) the like are handled transparently through django-storages' S3 support [2]. (The STATICFILES_STORAGE option in settings.) If you’ve used Django's staticfiles framework before, it’s pretty much plug-and-play.
For more dynamic file storage (say, using FileField or ImageField in a model), I believe django-storages would work, too. (Make sure you configure django-storages with the DEFAULT_FILE_STORAGE option set to S3 also.)
Assuming you’re managing your site via a local dev server (or a server that "hosts" the "hot type" version of the site), any time you "upload" a file to your local server, it'll actually upload to S3 (and any calls to "field.url" will actually map to the S3 URL). Not sure how well it'll work in all use cases: I haven't actually used FileField or ImageField myself in the django-medusa+django-storages usecase, but I have used both separately so I’m fairly sure this is possible.
This is a pretty darn good question though, so I’ll likely make a follow-up blogpost with a more comprehensive walkthrough regarding handling staticfiles and FileField/ImageField. Sometime in the near future.
Multiple sites/subdomains is a bit more complicated. I’d say you should probably use separate Django instances for each and render them separately. (For S3, you’d need to use separate buckets, anyway.) If they need to share data, you can configure multiple Django settings.py configurations for each site but still use the same source tree and local database. (See the Django sites framework: [3])
Actually, I thought his comment was quite delicate.
I used to think that DB comparisons were bad because of vested interests, like Oracle refusing to allow anyone to benchmark them. But I now think that Antirez's view is much closer to the truth: poorly informed people can't set up benchmarks correctly because they don't understand the underlying DB model and possible optimizations, and well informed people can't set up benchmarks because they can't think of a fair benchmark that doesn't explicitly handicap one model or set of optimizations versus the other.
(Of course, in this case, the comparison is pretty bad. Other commenters have noted that an inverted index is more sensible here and that Postgres' text search support should have been used. But the big issue to me is that the graphs are incredibly misleading, with totally different units on the y axis, so that a 0.004 second win for Mongo looks like as big a win as a 3 second win for PG.)
Hi 55pts, don't take me wrong I understand what you mean, but it is like to say that because I happen to contribute to some software that is popular I don't have the right to express freely my thoughts.
garbage here means: not very useful. More politically correct people are going to use a different word, but the concept is the same. DBs comparison / benchmarking is hard and I read many blog posts about people that apparently don't even have a solid understanding / experience with one of the systems (sometimes with both the compared ones), so this articles are really not going to help but to confuse other users.
Garbage means "shit", it never meant "not very useful".
You being Denis Ritchie's reincarnation or John Doe changes nothing to that, and to the fact that you have been disrespectful of someone else's work.
Personal opinion: on HN you have the right to be disrespectful of a work that is of mediocre quality (which is the case) if you provide the community with more details on why it is bad and how to improve, and, more importantly, if you do not deny being disrespectful just two posts below by changing on the fly the meaning of a word.
That's your opinion about how HN should look like, mine is different, more like that:
1) This kind of puritanism you express is not part of the hacking culture at all.
2) To compare two database systems that are the hard work of a lot of people, without a solid understanding, is the real problem here, because it means to spread shit to one or the other, and also to have an effect into potential users trying to understand what to use.
So I think that the only that should be worrying about their behavior is people posting incorrect stuff.
But because I trust in freedom I don't want to prevent them from posting with some kind of pre-post filter. Nor you should try to prevent me to say this kind of blog posts are often garbage.
An expert engineer like antirez (or Linus, etc) calling your work garbage actually is constructive criticism, if you take it that way and act on it, instead of feeling entitled to some additional work or time contribution from them.
I think 55pts makes an important distinction: just because it's possible to write programs in a functional style doesn't mean it's a functional language. The answer with the most votes in your SO link sums it up: Ruby is an imperative, OO language, and you can be generous and add that it has first-class functions and lexical closures. But JavaScript, Python, Perl, PHP, and C# fall in this category, and maybe Java 8 will too. If they are all "functional languages" then the phrase is meaningless.
why is this even on the front page? Without context the presentation is pretty much useless.
If you are interested in app development with coffeescript just search github for titanium + coffeescript and you'll get lots of cool templates and examples.
