It's probably a bit slower, since CF has to parse the content of those
pages looking for executable code. If you get a lot of traffic, this
might be a consideration. I doubt if you'll notice it on a moderately
traffic'd site on sufficient hardware. My guess, in order of speed, would
be static pages, then server-side includes, then CF.
But when you want to step up and do even a _little_ bit of coding in those
pages, CF is so much more powerful. Say, displaying either 'this' or
'that' based on some condition (the day of the week?). You'll be able to
do this whenever you want if you're already using CF.
That said... if I was doing a relatively simple site and knew that I'd
never need dynamic content, I'd probably go with mostly static pages and
use a development environment like Dreamweaver to manage common page
headers and footers and the like. Depends a bit on how much traffic this
site would receive and how concerned you are about efficiency.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Fongemie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Cf-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 9:50 AM
Subject: Are there any disadvantages to using CFINCLUDE as a server side
include?
>
>Are there any disadvantages to using CFINCLUDE to put pages together? I
want
>to use them in place of .shtml for basic page editing, no real cold
fusion
>application at all.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff Fongemie
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.eGroups.com/list/cf-talk
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
