At 1:32 PM -0400 10/2/98, Brent Eades wrote:
>Have a question for you server-savvy types out there:
>
>I'm working on an intranet project which uses large amounts of
>Javascript. At present I have things structured such that each
>of the several hundred pages on the site has an identical head
>section, which loads seven different external scripts. These
>control drop-down menus, user-customization options and so on.
>
>This is all working fine, but my client is of the opinion that
>it would be preferable to generate each page on-the-fly using
>SSI; i.e., the head would be a separate file that would be
>called with an !--#include. His main objective is to make the
>body of each page easier to maintain, which I suppose it
>would. But it's my (quite possibly faulty) belief that
>overall this would slow down the site's operation, what with
>the constant requests to the server engendered by the SSIs.
>
>My contention is that Netscape 4.x (the browser used by the
>department in question) by default caches JC scripts called
>externally, meaning that they will only have to be requested
>once from the server, and then each page of the site will be
>loaded as needed. Whereas with SSI there would be at least two
>requests for every page, one for the body and the other for
>the included header. Or am I off-base here?
I'm pretty sure that Netscape treats Javascript just like it does standard
HTML, in that it does not cache the code. Every time a new page loads,
Netscape must re-load the Javascript because Netscape has no way of knowing
that the Javascript on the current page is identical to the Javascript on
the previous page.
>As it is the head on each page only runs to about 25 lines of
>code, since the various scripts are separate entities called
>externally... it's my view that it's better to leave each page
>a self-contained entity, and dispense with the SSI stuff.
>
>Opinions?
If 25-line header stuff is something that will need to be updated
frequently, it might be better to use SSI to make life easier. If the
25-line stuff will pretty much always stay the same, then I'd opt for not
using SSI.
But I use SSI pretty extensively on some of my sites and haven't been
displeased with any slowing down of response time. Things seem pretty
responsive to me. But I'm not talking about a corporate intranet either.
-- Gary
---------------------------------------
Gary T. Almes, Words In Progress
voice: 410-515-9714 fax: 410-515-0091
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.wordsinprogress.com
ICQ: 13464614 AIM: GaryT32
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
