Hmm, no... but it's not a new idea. A google for "asp template script" might be a good place to start looking.
Failing that I'll try and dig out the code. > -----Original Message----- > From: J.R. Pitts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 05 December 2002 15:52 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [wdvltalk] RE: ASP or VBscript problem > > > Ben, > > do you have any links to examples of scripts using that > implementation? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [wdvltalk] RE: ASP or VBscript problem > > > 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.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.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: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
