Re: Nested tags count question

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1997


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 11112
interpreted = N
texte = >>> Had a page set up where the [search] [/search] was imbedded in the html >>>and got the dreaded to many nested tags error with the plugin. Switched to >>>a hyperlink search and was able to add more tags than I removed. By that I >>>counted the [bracket] sets. If this was a fluke based on the page I >>>created...hmmm. >>> >>>But my question is does an imbedded [search] [/search] take up more >>>overhead in the nested [tags] issue if anybody knows with out bothering >>>overworked Grant. Would influence how I look at page layout in the future. >>Yes, I believe embedded searches add a level of nesting that's not part of >>a forms-based search or a URL-based search. The nomber of possible levels >>of nesting is not a fized number, either, instead I think it has to do with >>the amount on memory the plugin uses - or has available - to interpret all >>the nested tags before it returns the html page. >> >>Grant told me that the WebCatalog Plugin only has a tight limit on nesting >>with WebSTAR 2.0 If you're using WebSTAR 1.3.2 then you can have more >>nested tags. Apparently StarNine changed the memory code with WebSTAR 2.0 >>and it allows less memory - or something like that - to its plugins, that's >>why the WebCat plugin with 1.3.2 can support deeper nesting than with 2.0. >> >>I wanted to upgrade to WebSTAR 2.0 but I think my site will be faster with >>the WebCAt plugin and 1.3.2 than with the WebCat acgi and WebStar 2.0 - but >>I could be way off-base with this assumption, too ... I don't really know >>enough about it, I just have the feeling that a faster WebCat will make a >>faster web site. >Thanks, have given Webstar2.0 21 megs to allocate as much as possible to >webcatalog plig-in on another issue I am fighting. Right this instant it >shows 11018K available to webcat. I hope I didn't mislead you, but I think it's more than a raw memory issue. In other words, allocating more memory won't make any difference ...Sincerely, Ken Grome ..... ken@iav.com Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Nested tags count question (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  2. Re: Nested tags count question (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  3. Re: Nested tags count question (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  4. Re: Nested tags count question (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  5. Re: Nested tags count question (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  6. Re: Nested tags count question (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  7. Re: Nested tags count question (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
  8. Re: Nested tags count question (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  9. Re: Nested tags count question (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  10. Re: Nested tags count question (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  11. Re: Nested tags count question (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  12. Re: Nested tags count question (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
  13. Re: Nested tags count question (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  14. Nested tags count question (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
>>> Had a page set up where the [search] [/search] was imbedded in the html >>>and got the dreaded to many nested tags error with the plugin. Switched to >>>a hyperlink search and was able to add more tags than I removed. By that I >>>counted the [bracket] sets. If this was a fluke based on the page I >>>created...hmmm. >>> >>>But my question is does an imbedded [search] [/search] take up more >>>overhead in the nested [tags] issue if anybody knows with out bothering >>>overworked Grant. Would influence how I look at page layout in the future. >>Yes, I believe embedded searches add a level of nesting that's not part of >>a forms-based search or a URL-based search. The nomber of possible levels >>of nesting is not a fized number, either, instead I think it has to do with >>the amount on memory the plugin uses - or has available - to interpret all >>the nested tags before it returns the html page. >> >>Grant told me that the WebCatalog Plugin only has a tight limit on nesting >>with WebSTAR 2.0 If you're using WebSTAR 1.3.2 then you can have more >>nested tags. Apparently StarNine changed the memory code with WebSTAR 2.0 >>and it allows less memory - or something like that - to its plugins, that's >>why the WebCat plugin with 1.3.2 can support deeper nesting than with 2.0. >> >>I wanted to upgrade to WebSTAR 2.0 but I think my site will be faster with >>the WebCAt plugin and 1.3.2 than with the WebCat acgi and WebStar 2.0 - but >>I could be way off-base with this assumption, too ... I don't really know >>enough about it, I just have the feeling that a faster WebCat will make a >>faster web site. >Thanks, have given Webstar2.0 21 megs to allocate as much as possible to >webcatalog plig-in on another issue I am fighting. Right this instant it >shows 11018K available to webcat. I hope I didn't mislead you, but I think it's more than a raw memory issue. In other words, allocating more memory won't make any difference ...Sincerely, Ken Grome ..... ken@iav.com Kenneth Grome

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:

OBDC Support (1997) Alternating colors (1997) Setting up a lightbox (2002) Emails are Stuck (2003) Bad creator codes which cause access denied error message (1997) [WebDNA] Feature Request (2013) webstar/webcat monitoring aides? (1999) Templates on Unix & CGI on Mac? (1997) [WebDNA] Is WebDNA slowing things up - please try these URL's (2013) Test Please Ignore (2004) OT- AS/400 and Macs (2003) Upcoming 2.1 Release and PCS Committment (1997) ConvertChars? (1998) WCS Newbie question (1997) quotes (2004) How does WebCatalog search the database? (1997) WebCatalog Hosting (1996) WebCatalog can't find database (1997) Sort Order on a page search (1997) ignore (test) (2000)