failing that, build your HTML pages as templates and read them in using the FSO, replacing 'fields' in the mark-up, such [this] and [that], with real data at run-time.
this has two advantages over Context-Switching and Server-Side HTML generation: you can continue to build the HTML without interfering with the ASP, and the ASP code isn't tied down to pay particualr page layouts, formatting, etc. hth, .ben > -----Original Message----- > From: Furry, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 05 December 2002 15:30 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [wdvltalk] RE: ASP or VBscript problem > > > Casey wrote: > On a separate note, jumping in and out of VBScript causes > system slowdown, and in the long run you'll have better > performance if you were to do something like this: > > Perry (my alter-ego <grin>) responded: > Hmmmm. Not to argue (I'm way too green at asp) but I was > under the impression that dropping out of asp to implement > standard html was the preferred method. You don't have to > write line after line of "Response.write()". What information > are you basing your statement on? > > Casey again: > I first heard this theory from Greg C. on this list. Is he > still around? Not seen a post from him in a long while. But > since then I've had it confirmed by several co-workers as > well. Yes, writing line after line of response.write is a > task, but the resulting ASP is cleaner and faster. > > Then JR spoke: > dropping in and out of ASP to static HTML is referred to as > context switching. > > There are two reasons to avoid excessive context switching: > performance and readability. > > First, performance. [snip of example] If you're not > developing web pages for at least couple hundred users, it > really won't make a lot of difference. Plus, the new ASP 3.0 > engine and Windows 2000 are more efficient at handling > context switches, so performance on that platform takes very > minimal hits, except at extremely high usage/switching rates. > > But you also have readability and maintenance. Switching in > and out of HTML/ASP isn't all that easy on human eyes, > either. The more <%'s and %>'s there are in a script, the > more likely you are to miss one or double up on one. > > Another thing, having static HTML blocks in your code means > that a lot of white space (tabs and spaces) get sent with > your page. using response.write doesn't send extra white > space. IOW, instead of sending [tab][tab][tab][tab]<tr>[crlf] > it only sends the <tr> ... saves 6 characters. > > The best compromise, I think, is to keep blocks together as > much as possible. Don't switch every other line. There is one > guy who publishes as site that uses an out() function to save > typing response.write. I think that's just as bad, since > you're calling a function every time. > > Myself personally, I context switch frequently during dev and > debug, and then go back and wrap as much as possible in > response.write's. > > Tim adds: > This has been a topic I'm interested in, also. Developing a > new site or app with is easier if you do a lot of context > switching - it's easier to see what code is doing what, > particularly if you're using an IDE of some sort. My > approach is the same as JR's - develop and debug using a lot > of switching, then go back and add Response.Writes to "block > up" the code - reduce the switches to perhaps 5 or 10 per > page or less. Some pages I completely write with > Response.Writes (the menu system of our website, for example) > just because I want it running as fast as possible. I also > take the time to go back and View Source from the browser > after I've converted to Response.Writes, just to make sure > the HTML is getting indented nicely and looks good. I am > different than JR in the fact that I have the ASP kick out > the extra whitespace to retain the HTML formatting - it's one > more way to make debugging easier on myself. > > A friend of mine looked at this issue pretty hard a few > months ago, and came to the conclusion that even though > context switching slows down a page, apparently using > Response.Writes also takes a lot of time - almost as much as > a switch would have taken. In his opinion it wasn't worth > worrying about context switching unless you had a page coded > and debugged pretty solidly and then converted the whole > thing to Response.Writes, in which case of course it gets > pretty hard to debug, particularly if you are (like me) > sometimes cranking out client-side Javascript using > Response.Writes. :-) > > Using an out() function probably just negates the whole idea > of using Response.Write for speed. It would be used simply > for convenience, I think, and you're only saving a few > characters of typing. While I always try to use the most > efficient code I am capable of producing, our site doesn't > get hit hard at all and it's never an issue. It seems to me > if you really needed the speed you'd go with .NET (which I > have yet to learn) since the ASP gets compiled and supposedly > runs 50x - 100x faster than "classic" ASP. One day I will go > there, but the learning curve seems a little steep and I > can't find the time to dive in because all the other projects > are "need it yesterday!". :-) I might add that one reason I > haven't started using .NET yet is that I want to learn it > *properly* - move my head more into an object-oriented frame > of mind rather than just converting old ASP into VB.NET. I > don't really think in terms of objects at the present - it's > going to be an adjustment. Most of what I do is on such small > scales that building objects takes longer than just cranking > out procedural code to do the same thing. Never could get my > head around the "Hello world" object. :-) > > Tim > ___________________________ > Tim Furry > Web Developer > Foulston Siefkin LLP > > > > > ____ . The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM . ____ > To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Send Your Posts > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: > http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub > > ________________ http://www.wdvl.com _______________________ > > You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to > %%email.unsub%% > ____ � The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM � ____ To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub ________________ http://www.wdvl.com _______________________ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
