Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
On Dom 02 Jun 2002 21:45, David Freeman wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Personally, it depends on what I'm doing. I find that excessive use of ? And ? in my code gets distracting so if I need a lot of php code I will usually put the straight html into echo/print strings. If I'm doing something that is predominantly html with only a few php variables or some such then I'll do it mostly in html. Often if there's just a php code block I'll move it into an include and then just include it in normal html. This helps readability and lets me separate some of the layout aspects from the code logic aspects. In the end if it's valid it will work. My only real decision is based on readability for my own purposes. See the HTML template class that comes with PEAR! Saludos... :-) -- Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera, si podés usar PostgreSQL? - Martín Marqués |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica Universidad Nacional del Litoral - -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- Please pray the Holy Rosary to end the holocaust of abortion. Remember in your prayers the Holy Souls in Purgatory. May God bless you abundantly in His love! For a free Cenacle Scriptural Rosary Booklet: http://www.webhart.net/csrb/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
Thanks Bogdan, That's what I thought, but I was beginning to feel 'guilty' the more I understood php. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that there's much mor chance for error using 'pure' php (as in forgetting ' or or closing with ; -- but . . . Actually I've found that the 'mixed' is easier to read and understand -- less quotes, less 'print' to read with every line. But that's just personal taste on my part. While I'm at it, I've also noticed that coders tend to integrate 'result' pages with the 'calling' page. (That is, I have a text input, and use a php function to verify it on the same page). I've tended to keep them separate for de-bugging purposes. Should I consider re-writing them as well? Regards, Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:16 pm, you wrote: No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- Please pray the Holy Rosary to end the holocaust of abortion. Remember in your prayers the Holy Souls in Purgatory. May God bless you abundantly in His love! For a free Cenacle Scriptural Rosary Booklet: http://www.webhart.net/csrb/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:13 pm, you wrote: On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 07:55:09PM -0400, Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre ---end quoted text--- I don't know, but i prefer coding in mixed way.. to avoid excessive escaping at html tags and other.. []'s Thanks Marcelo, Precisely my feelings as well. Looks cleaner since I can spot the divisions quite readily (no print . . . ; in the code). Regards, Andre -- Please pray the Holy Rosary to end the holocaust of abortion. Remember in your prayers the Holy Souls in Purgatory. May God bless you abundantly in His love! For a free Cenacle Scriptural Rosary Booklet: http://www.webhart.net/csrb/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
I'm not sure what you mean... Is it checking that you fill in the correct values via PHP or that the submission works - or something else? Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: Thanks Bogdan, That's what I thought, but I was beginning to feel 'guilty' the more I understood php. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that there's much mor chance for error using 'pure' php (as in forgetting ' or or closing with ; -- but . . . Actually I've found that the 'mixed' is easier to read and understand -- less quotes, less 'print' to read with every line. But that's just personal taste on my part. While I'm at it, I've also noticed that coders tend to integrate 'result' pages with the 'calling' page. (That is, I have a text input, and use a php function to verify it on the same page). I've tended to keep them separate for de-bugging purposes. Should I consider re-writing them as well? Regards, Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:16 pm, you wrote: No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
However... From the point of view of someone who has worked in a company where diesign is separated from development, it is much better to have separate files with HTML templates with special markers (in the library I use, it is HTML comments !--element_to_replace--) so that the two processes are adequately separated. When all of the HTML is embedded in PHP staements, minor changes to HTML layout involve a PHP developer, whereas with template based strategies all they have to do is change the template. I believe that 'smarty' is the approved template libray, but there are several other worth investigating. Mikey Bogdan Stancescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
That's what I meant. I was referring to verification/validation scripts for user inputs. I've made a separate page that runs these routines. I have a feeling I should have incorporated them on the user input page . . . but does it really amtter if they're on another page? Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:32 pm, you wrote: I'm not sure what you mean... Is it checking that you fill in the correct values via PHP or that the submission works - or something else? Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: Thanks Bogdan, That's what I thought, but I was beginning to feel 'guilty' the more I understood php. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that there's much mor chance for error using 'pure' php (as in forgetting ' or or closing with ; -- but . . . Actually I've found that the 'mixed' is easier to read and understand -- less quotes, less 'print' to read with every line. But that's just personal taste on my part. While I'm at it, I've also noticed that coders tend to integrate 'result' pages with the 'calling' page. (That is, I have a text input, and use a php function to verify it on the same page). I've tended to keep them separate for de-bugging purposes. Should I consider re-writing them as well? Regards, Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:16 pm, you wrote: No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- Please pray the Holy Rosary to end the holocaust of abortion. Remember in your prayers the Holy Souls in Purgatory. May God bless you abundantly in His love! For a free Cenacle Scriptural Rosary Booklet: http://www.webhart.net/csrb/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
I would ask the question How much HTML before you break out of PHP and into HTML. My answer is any. Surely you're making the engine work just to echo stuff out? But are you asking for more by making it jump in and out between all those tags?! Short tags ... td bgcolor=?=$td_col? class=?=$prefclass? ... easier to read in Mixed? I think so. Also, pure coding breaks the HTML syntax coloring in my text editor! Simon Thanks Bogdan, That's what I thought, but I was beginning to feel 'guilty' the more I understood php. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that there's much mor chance for error using 'pure' php (as in forgetting ' or or closing with ; -- but . . . Actually I've found that the 'mixed' is easier to read and understand -- less quotes, less 'print' to read with every line. But that's just personal taste on my part. While I'm at it, I've also noticed that coders tend to integrate 'result' pages with the 'calling' page. (That is, I have a text input, and use a php function to verify it on the same page). I've tended to keep them separate for de-bugging purposes. Should I consider re-writing them as well? Regards, Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:16 pm, you wrote: No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
Thanks Michael, Point well-made. I suppose doing it the mixed way might have repercussions later on if/when the site grows. Perhaps while the code is still fresh in my mid, it might be worth the effort to separate it. However, for a good part of the site, I've used CSS for appearance details, and controlling a lot of stuff that changes from page-to-page. It's very easy to change all or some of the pages from the CSS scripts. But, for the most part, not much of the actual php scripts COULD change, so that's why I've never bothered to separate html from php. Perhaps I wrong, but . . . Regards, Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:36 pm, you wrote: However... From the point of view of someone who has worked in a company where diesign is separated from development, it is much better to have separate files with HTML templates with special markers (in the library I use, it is HTML comments !--element_to_replace--) so that the two processes are adequately separated. When all of the HTML is embedded in PHP staements, minor changes to HTML layout involve a PHP developer, whereas with template based strategies all they have to do is change the template. I believe that 'smarty' is the approved template libray, but there are several other worth investigating. Mikey Bogdan Stancescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- Please pray the Holy Rosary to end the holocaust of abortion. Remember in your prayers the Holy Souls in Purgatory. May God bless you abundantly in His love! For a free Cenacle Scriptural Rosary Booklet: http://www.webhart.net/csrb/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Personally, it depends on what I'm doing. I find that excessive use of ? And ? in my code gets distracting so if I need a lot of php code I will usually put the straight html into echo/print strings. If I'm doing something that is predominantly html with only a few php variables or some such then I'll do it mostly in html. Often if there's just a php code block I'll move it into an include and then just include it in normal html. This helps readability and lets me separate some of the layout aspects from the code logic aspects. In the end if it's valid it will work. My only real decision is based on readability for my own purposes. CYA, Dave -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
No, it doesn't - just go with whatever's simpler for you... and with what matches your application better - I don't think this does matter at all. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: That's what I meant. I was referring to verification/validation scripts for user inputs. I've made a separate page that runs these routines. I have a feeling I should have incorporated them on the user input page . . . but does it really amtter if they're on another page? Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:32 pm, you wrote: I'm not sure what you mean... Is it checking that you fill in the correct values via PHP or that the submission works - or something else? Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: Thanks Bogdan, That's what I thought, but I was beginning to feel 'guilty' the more I understood php. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that there's much mor chance for error using 'pure' php (as in forgetting ' or or closing with ; -- but . . . Actually I've found that the 'mixed' is easier to read and understand -- less quotes, less 'print' to read with every line. But that's just personal taste on my part. While I'm at it, I've also noticed that coders tend to integrate 'result' pages with the 'calling' page. (That is, I have a text input, and use a php function to verify it on the same page). I've tended to keep them separate for de-bugging purposes. Should I consider re-writing them as well? Regards, Andre On Sunday 02 June 2002 08:16 pm, you wrote: No *real* reason - just two not-so-important ones: 1. Clarity Please compare these two: -- MIXED td bgcolor=?php echo $td_col; ? class=?php echo $prefclass; ? ?php $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; ? input type=text name=fname size=50 value=?php echo $fldcontent; ? /td -- PURE ?php echo(td bgcolor='$td_col' class='$prefclass'\n); $fldcontent=$myrow[0]?$myrow[0]:no data; echo(input type='text' name='fname' size='50' value='$fldcontent'\n); ? The second is much easier to read and understand, you must agree. 2. Speed There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure php as you call it due to the first reason. Bogdan Andre Dubuc wrote: I've noticed that many people on the list code in 'pure' php, i.e. ? print input type='text' name='fname' size='50'; // etc ? Since most of my code is a mixture (the early stuff is 'mixed' html + php), I've been wondering why code in 'pure' php? Is there some compelling reason (that I'm unaware of) for doing so? Should I rewrite all my earlier code into its 'pure' form? If so, what do I do with the '! DOCTYPE . . . statement -- put it in quotes too? I would like to understand the reasons for writing code in this manner, when all my code works fine, displays great: am I missing something important here? Btw, I use the 'php' ending for all file names. Your thoughts, opinions and suggestions would be greatly appreciated -- I'd like to do what is best. Tia, Andre -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
I fell for this some time ago - but the trick is that
1. You don't do for ($i=0; $i999; $i++) { echo Line $ibr\n;
} in real life - you do stuff, call object methods, run queries,
whatever, and in between those you have both html and php - and the
remote machine waits for you to do all the extra stuff and _then_
waits for you to switch in and out of php for several times. I'm
thinking about switching in and out of php in a really-mixed context -
such as having blocks of html inside if() and while() blocks, stuff like
that where you get to parse quite a number of php tags.
2. Your server doesn't only serve one client at a time - I'm surprised
that you're starting with commercial sites and this piece of information
isn't *always* present in your mind.
However, as I said in my original mail, there's an urban legend saying
that [...] I don't know if that's true. So... I don't know if it
actually slows things down or not.
Bogdan
Marcelo Leitner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 03:16:10AM +0300, Bogdan Stancescu wrote:
2. Speed
There's an urban legend saying that switching php tags on and off would
slow parsing down. I don't know if that's true and try to write pure
php as you call it due to the first reason.
I don't mind about this.. I'm starting with comercial pages now and before that
I noted that any script you run at the server, you will only see this latency
if the output is buffered or you have a ultra-fast machine with a
super-powerfull navigator that can renderize the page before it's fully sent to
the browser..
Try doing something like for ($i=0; $i999; $i++) { echo Line $ibr\n; }
Run the script in one machine and the browser at another.. you'll see that the
client machine has the cpu burned much more then the server..
You can see this when you're trying to open that big-flat-forums
all-in-one-page.. you'll get sometime 1. to receive that, 2. to renderize..
Note that you can only see the renderizing time if you're on a fast connection..
What I do take care is about excessive database searchs.. that can slow down
the things since I'll probably will not have a reserved server..
Bogdan
---end quoted text---
[]'s
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
Point well-made. I suppose doing it the mixed way might have repercussions later on if/when the site grows. Perhaps while the code is still fresh in my mid, it might be worth the effort to separate it. However, for a good part of the site, I've used CSS for appearance details, and controlling a lot of stuff that changes from page-to-page. It's very easy to change all or some of the pages from the CSS scripts. But, for the most part, not much of the actual php scripts COULD change, so that's why I've never bothered to separate html from php. Perhaps I wrong, but . . . I think it is a case of horses for courses - you are working on what sounds like a fairly small project, and templatizing your code may be more trouble than it is worth, so whatever feels best for you... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
This whole discussion made me really curious - so you might want to
check the attachments (access mixtest.php) for a very surprising result
(please note mixed.php and pure.php are exactly the same size so this
doesn't affect the test).
Bogdan
Marcelo Leitner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:42:46AM +0300, Bogdan Stancescu wrote:
I fell for this some time ago - but the trick is that
1. You don't do for ($i=0; $i999; $i++) { echo Line $ibr\n;
} in real life - you do stuff, call object methods, run queries,
whatever, and in between those you have both html and php - and the
remote machine waits for you to do all the extra stuff and _then_
waits for you to switch in and out of php for several times. I'm
thinking about switching in and out of php in a really-mixed context -
such as having blocks of html inside if() and while() blocks, stuff like
that where you get to parse quite a number of php tags.
2. Your server doesn't only serve one client at a time - I'm surprised
that you're starting with commercial sites and this piece of information
isn't *always* present in your mind.
However, as I said in my original mail, there's an urban legend saying
that [...] I don't know if that's true. So... I don't know if it
actually slows things down or not.
Bogdan
---end quoted text---
I gave that example to be a create a huge final page with the less time
as possible..
You never do that loop, but what about logfiles analysing? You have tons of
lines, probably splited by day, of all the accesses and whatever were done..
I did a some time ago a database of the itens from a MUD game.. I allowed
users to list the whole database, so they could read that and search for new
items for them.. but each item had 6 lines displayed, without tables or
anything, neither li/li.. only br and p..
when it got about 400 items, my PIII-733 321MB ram got under it's knees to
render that page.. it didn't have any fig or whatever that would need more
time to render..
I now that I'll not have a dedicated http server, but loosing microseconds
at each page on a server that has one thousand accesses per day is nothing..
And even if you're going to have that traffic you'll have better servers
that will deal with that and will probably run more processes at a time, so
a script that is coded slowly wouldn't break the other..
What I don't do is
...
if ($a == $x) { ?
trtd align=center?echo $a?/td/tr
? } else { ?
trtd align=right?echo $a?/td/tr
? }
...
That's really ugly! :)
[]'s
?
if ($foo==bar) { ?
tdBla-bla - testing/td
?
$bar=$foo;
?
td?=$bar ?/td?
}
?
?php
if ($foo==bar) {
echo(tdBla-bla - testing/td\n);
$bar=$foo;
echo(td$bar/td\n);
}
?
?php
ini_set('max_execution_time', 600);
function gettime() {
list($usec, $sec) = explode( , microtime());
return ((float)$usec + (float)$sec);
}
$t1=gettime();
for ($i=0;$i!=1;$i++) {
include(mixed.php);
}
$t2=gettime();
for ($i=0;$i!=1;$i++) {
include(pure.php);
}
$t3=gettime();
echo(($t2-$t1).s for mixed code;br\n);
echo(($t3-$t2).s for pure code.br\n);
echo(round((($t3-$t2)/($t2-$t1)-1)*100,2).% more time used for bPURE/b
code.br\n);
?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] 'Pure' php vs 'mixed' (html + php)
I was getting a typical 2.5% more for pure PHP with the original order - switching them increases the difference to about 6.5% more for pure PHP. Make sure you run it several times before drawing any conclusions, BTW. Strange... Bogdan Marcelo Leitner wrote: On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 05:18:50AM +0300, Bogdan Stancescu wrote: This whole discussion made me really curious - so you might want to check the attachments (access mixtest.php) for a very surprising result (please note mixed.php and pure.php are exactly the same size so this doesn't affect the test). Bogdan ---end quoted text--- But try inverting the order of the test, first test the pure, then the mixed.. they will get almost equal.. []'s -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
