I tell you, we've got synergy here...
I was thinking a very similar thought yesterday, but on a slightly different
slant: Often, our CF pages are populated by db queries, which don't need to
be redone unless the data within the database changes.
THEREFORE: (looks legal when you use ALL CAPS on the first word) If you have
an app where the sole data changer is CF, AND you haven't executed an
ADD/UPDATE/DELETE, the CF template could in fact be rendered as a static
HTML page.
THEREFORE: Would it not be an interesting concept to make our sites 100%
search engine compatible by using Fusebox NOT to serve up dynamic .CFM
templates, but rather to generate static .HTML templates and use some
mechanism such as CFFILE to write these templates to the web structure?
Imagine a fusebox app containing administrative fuseactions such as
"Regenerate entire web structure", "Regenerate query based pages", etc.
I know this wouldn't work for every instance, but I think this could
drastically cut down the total load placed on the CFAS, since many pages
would be directly served by the web server instead.
Its a sort of paradigm shift; use CF not for dynamically serving pages on
demand, but rather, using it to batch-generate pages only as needed. Imagine
the speed!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Briscoe [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:31 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Handling Static and Dynamic Pages
>
> Hello all. Here's a point I'm pondering and I hope to get your thought
> pennies.
>
> When you compose a Fusebox site, it's likely you'll have a large number of
> essentially static pages. They're nothing more than content to be
> displayed and read. In that case, is it better to:
>
> 1) Stick to Fusebox. Create "dsp_" files and fuseactions for each page to
> display.
> 2) Do it the old fashioned way. Create standard pages and link directly
> to them. Use Fusebox for site functions that merit it.
>
> Now, let's say we have a compelling reason to make all pages of static
> content dynamically generated. (We'll build a content management system to
> let Marketing make their own little copy edits rather than bothering you.)
> In this case, is it better to:
>
> 1) Use a file-per-page method. Create "dsp_" plus whatever other
> appropriate files for each page of content.
> 2) Use a page ID to generate a page. No physical file exists. The page
> ID pulls the appropriate text for the page from the database.
>
> I have my own answers. But I'll not spoil it by giving that away yet.
>
> Tom Briscoe
> Web Developer
> Compass Bank
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
