http://davidcramer.disqus.com/enMon, 05 Oct 2009 14:16:42 -0000http://cramer.io//451/improving-gzipmiddleware-in-django.html#comment-38940820<p>Nice. On nit: The class comment claims the opposite.</p>CCMon, 05 Oct 2009 14:16:42 -0000http://cramer.io//451/improving-gzipmiddleware-in-django.html#comment-38940819<p>Nice. On nit: The class comment claims the opposite.</p>Dave SmithSat, 18 Apr 2009 18:02:00 -0000http://cramer.io//451/improving-gzipmiddleware-in-django.html#comment-38940818<p>@Jakub you are absolutely right that it would be much more efficient to use an existing solution rather than doing it in Python.</p>David CramerFri, 17 Apr 2009 18:30:16 -0000http://cramer.io//451/improving-gzipmiddleware-in-django.html#comment-38940817<p>I didn't know that one actually uses this middleware in production. Shouldn't the gzipping be done by the webserver (apache/lighttpd/ngix)?</p><p>We usually set up a ngix to serve the static files and as reverse proxy to put proper etags/expires headers and gzip responses from django runned on apache+mod_wsgi. I guess it's faster than having all that work done by Django, isn't it?</p>JakubFri, 17 Apr 2009 17:41:24 -0000http://cramer.io//451/improving-gzipmiddleware-in-django.html#comment-38940816<p>You should file a bug on Django's tracker. Trying to encode binary data is certainly not the correct behavior.</p>JohannFri, 17 Apr 2009 17:27:00 -0000