Tim, your method of replying/quoting is truly magnificent :) Comments at the bottom...
> Tim (previously): > > You'll need to change the ASP page > > (assuming you've added or removed dynamic content from the > > output page), and you'll have to change the HTML template. > > Ben: > Ahh, well yes. For example if you've added/removed some > fields from the datasource then you would have to modify > both. It wouldn't be anymore time consuming than doing it in > the conventional way, I still believe the time spent flipping > between the two files would be a LOT less than having your > HTML and ASP developers trying to work on the same file at > the same time, which does happen in some outfits. Not all > HTML guys do server-side dev, and vice-versa. > > Tim: > Ah! I see. Sorry, everywhere I've worked the developers do > everything, except for perhaps graphics. It hadn't occurred > to me that they might be split out into specializations (some > doing HTML, some doing ASP). This setup makes a lot more > sense in that context. > > Tim, previously: > > Seems like a lot of management to me; there might also be a > > time cost in hitting the hard drive twice (?). > > Ben: > I can't say I've noticed any noticable speed difference. I > don't believe opening a text file and reading it in to be a > particualrly costly exercise. Hell, if it bothers you why not > cache the HTML templates in the application layer? > > Tim: > It wasn't bothering me :-), I was just considering some of > the ramifications. I don't think it would be particularly > expensive either, since the hard drive's maybe already cached > the file. > > Tim, previously: > > Second, can > > this method handle variable-length lists? For instance, I > > query a database for a list of users, and want to display > > them...but the HTML page doesn't know how many there are so I > > can't put in a series of "[username]" TDs to replace... > > Ben: > I use a separate template for that row of data. THe page > itself being built up of multiple shared templates. Yes, not > as nice as the one file but it *does* properly separate the > data-code from the presentation code. > > Tim: > So you would usually have several HTML files as building > blocks for a single template? Yeah. In some cases I've had to do this due to variable-length lists (tables of data). It's not *great* as you have to use multiple files (hmm, could do it all in one come to think of it) ...but it does have the advantage of even /less/ stuff to write. For example, last project I worked on we made Header, Footer, and Navigation templates and just re-used all of those again and againt to build all the pages. The less the page layout changes the less templates you need. > Sorry to keep beating this > horse, it's a completely different way of looking at things > than I'm used to, so I'm trying to follow it through. The > crews I've worked with always embed ASP and HTML together in > the same file - one webpage, one file. I still do a lot of work like this but not by choice. > I can see how your > approach might be more consistent with a multilayer > abstraction scheme (ah, "n-tier", to use MS's verbiage). Yeah, it really does work well for spliting up Presentation and Data layers, plus the added benefits if you work in teams where some are pure Front-end coders and can't be trusted with ASP code :) .b ____ � 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]
