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:

Outsourcing partnership ... (2005) [quantity] within formulas (1997) converted seed value? (1998) Shhh... (2006) & Aftermath (2000) Root Folder problems cont. (1998) supressing math results (1997) Wanted: More Math Functions (or, Can You Solve This?) (1997) [isfile] ? (1997) grep question - removing spaces (2005) anyone integrated inventory w/ storebuilder? (2003) sendmail spaces (1997) text size limitation (1997) Header Problems (1998) Re[2]: php vs WebCatalog (2000) WebCat2.0 [format thousands .0f] no go (1997) Part Html part WebDNA (1997) get vs post - Back to Basics. (2001) This is an odd error (2001) OT: How to find out who owns an IP address (2001)