Dan,
Take a look at this article:
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javaserverpages/js
p_templates/
I think it provides a solution you should consider. I've built my own
version of
the taglib (I wanted default values for the parameters) and it works
well.
Regards,
Gordon.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:17 PM
> > To: Orion-Interest
> > Cc: Dan Tharp
> > Subject: Standar Template
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
