With Pelican you step away from Dynamic (database based) websites to static websites.
But why would you consider doing that in the first place?
Maybe you want to lower your Risk (= probablity of an incident * the impact of
that incident) by lowering the possible threat vectors. Maybe you want to rely
on less code because you know that more code means more programming errors.
So now instead of having statistically more programming errors in your CMS or
Database (Design) which could potentially be turned into vulnerabilities, you
decided to downsize to only the possible vulnerabilities in your webserver software.
But the price for more security would be too high and unpractical if by
switching from dynamic websites to static websites you would loose critical
and useful functionality. But what if you could retain the functionalities and
also gain a method to easily write your articles and have them generated in html
for you? What about switching from a monolithic approach to services to a
distributed microservices paradigm?
What if you can change your corporate website to be more agile?
There is no one size fits all solution for this but in definition an organization
consists of functional building blocks which dynamically interacts with each
other in order to produce some goods or service. Object Orientated Programming
introduced a shift in the programming paradigm and microservices could produce
a similair shift in the services infrastructure.
The Pelican generated websites using API's for communicating with Disqus
(commenting service) and Mailchimp (mailing list service) are in fact examples
of mircroservices implementation.
Comments
So what do you think? Did I miss something? Is any part unclear? Leave your comment below.