>>include ("http://olga.pl/specials/topbar.php";);
>>
>>what gives me my layout from midgard style, but right after
>>"application.php" sent headers. Disadvantage is that such
>>include produce unnecessary log entries.
>
>
> And performance overhead.
And you don't want to see what happens with such architecture is put
under heavy load. I've seen it. Not nice.
> If the header-generating parts of your "application.php" are
> easily separated from the rest, you may also include it two-
> staged:
>
> <[code-init]>
> include("/path/to/application-init.php");
>
> <[content]>
> include("/path/to/application-show.php");
Good idea!
But what to do if not? That's the question I am asking myself. I love
midgard. It is great. Except when it is not, and there is where I think
I am.
Not that I don't think your solution is bad. It is better than any I've
been able to think of. However, if you are faced with many different
scripts that are part of a pre-existing application. The architecture
might not be so easy to split into compartments if the application
thinks it is "driving the page".
[ Next chapter in my imaginary book: how to (NOT!) write applications
that think they can drive your pages -- the benefits of working in a
framework -- yadda ]
I will be looking into the filetemplates strategy. I'd like to know if
Emile thinks the mechanism is stable -- for I might be about to bet a
big project on that.
cheers,
martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
