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:

MacAuthorize and WebMerchant (1997) [format 40s]text[/format] doesn't work (1997) [WebDNA] Crashing Database (2011) Do not truncate a whole word (2004) thankyou.tmpl (1997) Electronic Delivery (1997) Moving files from one server to another... (2001) Back Button problems (1998) Re2: Calculating multiple shipping... (1997) Summ=T Problem (1997) with Link i need to (1997) webcat NT (1998) anyone ever find IE pops an [authenticate] when it shouldn't? (2000) [OT] Netscape Browser Window (2001) Editing the search string (1997) Protecting Realms (1998) Great product and great job ! (1997) Cumulative Shipping charge calculations - your help please. (1997) WebCat2: Formulas.db question (1997) Secure server question (1997)