|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 11/09/06 05:40
Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>
>>Michael Fesser wrote:
>>
>>>Don't redirect. Configure your server to parse .html files for PHP.
>>
>>It's unnecessary overhead to parse static html files for PHP code.
>
>
> His files are not static, they contain PHP code. It's the URL that
> should be static to avoid link rot and inconveniences for your visitors.
>
Not necessarily. I have customers with a lot of PHP files which are
pretty much 'static'. Many of them depend on stuff in databases which
might change once a year or less. Not a lot of difference there between
a static page which is updated once a year and one which pulls from a
database.
Also, I have some customers with .php pages which really are static.
But why use PHP for some other function such as processing form data.
The output doesn't change at all. In that sense, they are 'static'.
Also, he never said *all* his pages were static. Telling the web server
to process *all* .html files as php files is an unnecessary overhead.
>
>> Now
>>what if you also want server side includes?
>
>
> If you have PHP, you don't need SSI anymore.
>
And if you don't need any PHP code in the page other than maybe an
include, you're doing completely unnecessary work.
> But of course you can also use SSI if you like - just configure the
> server to parse .html files for SSI directives. And if you want to use
> it all at the same time, you can do that as well:
>
> http://example.com/static.html
> http://example.com/phpscript.html
> http://example.com/perlscript.html
> http://example.com/ssi.html
>
> It just depends on the server configuration (in this case for example
> with content negotiation and MultiViews).
>
Yep, and the more you tell the server it has to parse, the more CPU time
it takes.
>
>>A 301 redirect is recognized by all search engines and they
>>will replace the old URL with the new one.
>>
>>New users will get the new URI and old ones will get redirected (and
>>most will also quickly learn the new URI).
>
>
> That's a broken design. There are many valid reasons to keep all such
> technical stuff out of URLs.
>
Not at all. No "technical stuff" in the url at all. You're just
redirecting index.html to actually retrieve index.php instead. And the
latter will be processed by the php interpreter.
>
>>After a period of time, you can replace the 301 redirect with another
>>page which indicates "The page has moved...". That way the few
>>left-over people who haven't change the URI will do so.
>
>
> Completely unnecessary, if you do it right from the beginning. If you
> really think you need a filename extension in URLs, then use 'html'.
> Of course no extension at all is even better.
>
> Micha
No extension? UGH - no, DOUBLE UGH! Vomit! Wash your mouth out with soap!
Extensions were created for a purpose - to let the server know what
needs to be handled by which processors. To bypass that creates a
completely unnecessary load on the server.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|