From his message headers it looks like it spent a *long* time in a mail
queue. I'd guess the original did the same and he assumed it'd been lost.
We have no performance problems with precompiled XSLT on every page;
perhaps you should reconsider your opinion. We're even using xalan,
reportedly just about the slowest xslt processor around...
Kirk Yarina
somewhat trimmed:
Received: from druid.evermind.net ... Fri, 11 May 2001 13:36:06 -0100
Received: from win2kweb ... Fri, 11 May 2001 14:14:30 -0400
Received: from itreya ... Fri, 11 May 2001 07:15:17 -0400
Received: from mail.itreya. ... Fri, 11 May 2001 16:54:26 +0530
Received: from apache ... Thu, 10 May 2001 15:23:56 -0400
At 09:12 AM 5/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dave, why are you resending this to the Orion-Interest list? You've seen a
>few ways to do it - a bad suggestion to use XSLT on every page, plus
>SiteMesh, plus a few others. Read the responses, mmmkay?
>
>On Thu, 10 May 2001, Dave Ford wrote:
>
> > I want to create a web app in which every page on the site has a standard
> > header along the top and a standard menu along the left edge (a pretty
> > standard thing).
> >
> > I came up with 2 ways of doing this:
> >
> > 1. Use a table tag and jsp:include tags on EVERY page:
> >
> > <table>
> > <tr>
> > <td><jsp:include page="standardHeader.jsp"/></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr>
> > <td colspan="2">
> > <table>
> > <tr>
> > <td valign="top"><jsp:include page="/menu.jsp" /></td>
> > <td valign="top">
> > THIS IS WHERE THE PAGE-SPECIFIC CONTENT (i.e. the body)*
> > </td>
> > </tr>
> > </table>
> > </td>
> > </tr>
> > </table>
> >
> > 2. Invert the above solution to create one master template (or controller)
> > and have the content page name passed in as a parameter. Here would be the
> > master template-controller page:
> >
> > <table>
> > <tr>
> > <td><jsp:include page="standardHeader.jsp"/></td>
> > </tr>
> > <tr>
> > <td colspan="2">
> > <table>
> > <tr>
> > <td valign="top"><jsp:include page="/menu.jsp" /></td>
> > <td valign="top">
> > <jsp:include page="<%=request.getParameter("contentPage")%>" />*
> > </td>
> > </tr>
> > </table>
> > </td>
> > </tr>
> > </table>
> >
> > The key difference between these two architectures are best understood by
> > looking at the 2 lines with the * at the end. Also, in option 2, there is
> > only one copy of the above code. In option 1, there is one copy "per
> content
> > page"
> >
> > Q1: Does anyone have any preference between options 1 and 2?
> > Q2: Is there a better way of achieving this result?
> > Q3: Do either have any negetive drawback I need to consider? (I will be
> > converting an entire site)
> >
> > By the way, I'm currently achieving this effect VERY easily using good old
> > client-side html frames. But due to popular demand, framse must go.
> >
> > Dave Ford
> > Smart Soft - The Java Training Company
> > http://www.smart-soft.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://winter.ajacency.com/ IT Consultant
