Re: [WebDNA] Issues regarding static vs. dynamic pages
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 106154
interpreted = N
texte = That's what I did. -Dan -------------------------------------------------- From: "William DeVaul"
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:31 AM To: Subject: Re: [WebDNA] Issues regarding static vs. dynamic pages > Can't you just write the static file whenever the content or the > keyword database is changed? This way changes are immediately visible > and the page generated once. This is similar to memcached in theory > which the sites that can withstand and Oprah mention would have. > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Dan Strong wrote: >>>Or better yet, I would prefer to just write the results to a complete set >>> of static web pages for the entire website. >> >> >> >> This is exactly what I ended up doing, except that I made the results >> static >> includes and now include them in the site as opposed to having so many >> staic >> actual pages. This way, the purpose of the CMS isn't lost. In doing this, >> I >> also figured out how to make it so the friendly URLs can work properly >> and >> will be testing and implementing them today. >> >> >> >> -Dan >> >> From: Kenneth Grome >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:33 AM >> To: talk@webdna.us >> Subject: [WebDNA] Issues regarding static vs. dynamic pages >> >>> >> every single word from each text of >> >>> >> each page is compared to a database in order to >> >>> >> create dynamic links: all the links from the websites >> >>> >> are in fact created "on the fly". >> >> If I had coded this type of feature I would not have done it this way -- >> precisely because it is slow and unnecessarily demanding of resources >> with >> every hit to the website. >> >> Instead I would create a script that processes "every single word from >> each >> text of each page" only once a day, and I would have this script write >> the >> resulting text with links to a new database. >> >> Or better yet, I would prefer to just write the results to a complete set >> of >> static web pages for the entire website. Then the server can deliver >> these >> static pages without requiring such a heavy load on WebDNA at the time >> each >> page is requested. >> >> The end result is that the site could be made up of mostly static pages >> not >> served by WebDNA. Yet those static pages would still be dynamically >> generated by WebDNA once a day to make sure they are current and >> up-to-date >> every 24 hours. >> >> Naturally the site admin should be able to run this script manually so he >> can update these pages "on demand" whenever he makes an important update >> that needs to be displayed to visitors immediately. >> >> I've done this kind of thing for several client sites before so I know it >> works -- and it works well. It makes the website very fast because most >> pages can be cached and gzipped by the server -- rather than being >> rendered >> by WebDNA upon each request -- thus avoiding unnecessarily heavy demands >> on >> WebDNA when those pages are requested. >> >> And by using a trigger to run my script in the middle of the night when >> almost no one is visiting, the heavy WebDNA processing is performed at >> the >> most opportune time in terms of server resources, so it never slows down >> the >> experience of daytime visitors unnecessarily. >> >> Oh, you say that with your site consisting of mostly static pages you >> cannot >> use WebDNA to let your visitors dynamically search your site? Don't worry >> about it because they couldn't care less what software powers the search. >> So >> instead of using WebDNA for site searches, just give your visitors a >> Google >> search box, and let them do a custom Google search within your mostly >> static >> site ... >> >> Not only are most people already familiar with the way Google search >> works >> (so they like this option) but this little trick also insures that Google >> *WILL* index all your static web pages -- on a regular basis -- probably >> once a day if your page headers tell Google that those pages expire >> daily. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Kenneth Grome >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- This message is >> sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To >> unsubscribe, >> E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug >> Reporting: support@webdna.us >> --------------------------------------------------------- This message is >> sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To >> unsubscribe, >> E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug >> Reporting: support@webdna.us > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us >
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
That's what I did. -Dan -------------------------------------------------- From: "William DeVaul" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:31 AM To: Subject: Re: [WebDNA] Issues regarding static vs. dynamic pages > Can't you just write the static file whenever the content or the > keyword database is changed? This way changes are immediately visible > and the page generated once. This is similar to memcached in theory > which the sites that can withstand and Oprah mention would have. > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Dan Strong wrote: >>>Or better yet, I would prefer to just write the results to a complete set >>> of static web pages for the entire website. >> >> >> >> This is exactly what I ended up doing, except that I made the results >> static >> includes and now include them in the site as opposed to having so many >> staic >> actual pages. This way, the purpose of the CMS isn't lost. In doing this, >> I >> also figured out how to make it so the friendly URLs can work properly >> and >> will be testing and implementing them today. >> >> >> >> -Dan >> >> From: Kenneth Grome >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:33 AM >> To: talk@webdna.us >> Subject: [WebDNA] Issues regarding static vs. dynamic pages >> >>> >> every single word from each text of >> >>> >> each page is compared to a database in order to >> >>> >> create dynamic links: all the links from the websites >> >>> >> are in fact created "on the fly". >> >> If I had coded this type of feature I would not have done it this way -- >> precisely because it is slow and unnecessarily demanding of resources >> with >> every hit to the website. >> >> Instead I would create a script that processes "every single word from >> each >> text of each page" only once a day, and I would have this script write >> the >> resulting text with links to a new database. >> >> Or better yet, I would prefer to just write the results to a complete set >> of >> static web pages for the entire website. Then the server can deliver >> these >> static pages without requiring such a heavy load on WebDNA at the time >> each >> page is requested. >> >> The end result is that the site could be made up of mostly static pages >> not >> served by WebDNA. Yet those static pages would still be dynamically >> generated by WebDNA once a day to make sure they are current and >> up-to-date >> every 24 hours. >> >> Naturally the site admin should be able to run this script manually so he >> can update these pages "on demand" whenever he makes an important update >> that needs to be displayed to visitors immediately. >> >> I've done this kind of thing for several client sites before so I know it >> works -- and it works well. It makes the website very fast because most >> pages can be cached and gzipped by the server -- rather than being >> rendered >> by WebDNA upon each request -- thus avoiding unnecessarily heavy demands >> on >> WebDNA when those pages are requested. >> >> And by using a trigger to run my script in the middle of the night when >> almost no one is visiting, the heavy WebDNA processing is performed at >> the >> most opportune time in terms of server resources, so it never slows down >> the >> experience of daytime visitors unnecessarily. >> >> Oh, you say that with your site consisting of mostly static pages you >> cannot >> use WebDNA to let your visitors dynamically search your site? Don't worry >> about it because they couldn't care less what software powers the search. >> So >> instead of using WebDNA for site searches, just give your visitors a >> Google >> search box, and let them do a custom Google search within your mostly >> static >> site ... >> >> Not only are most people already familiar with the way Google search >> works >> (so they like this option) but this little trick also insures that Google >> *WILL* index all your static web pages -- on a regular basis -- probably >> once a day if your page headers tell Google that those pages expire >> daily. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Kenneth Grome >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- This message is >> sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To >> unsubscribe, >> E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug >> Reporting: support@webdna.us >> --------------------------------------------------------- This message is >> sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To >> unsubscribe, >> E-mail to: archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug >> Reporting: support@webdna.us > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us >
"Dan Strong"
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Webcat bannersleuth Qs (2001)
Fun with dates (1997)
Shownext never shows next...still (1997)
What am I missing (1997)
shipCost (1998)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Restricting templates from causing havoc (2000)
[isfile] ? (1997)
[WebDNA] [ipaddress] - [RealIP] - Not working properly (2016)
insert graphic in email (2000)
stumped on simple sort (1999)
Calendar using WebCatalog? (1997)
Re:mail list (1998)
show all problem (1997)
Major Security Hole (1998)
Setting up WebCatalog with Retail Pro data (1996)
Snake Bites (1997)
Weird WebCatalog problems (1998)
time and welcome (1999)
Math with Time (1997)