|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/08/07 20:47
Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(J.O. Aho)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>
>>> Nope, I know at least three different ways (MultiViews and mod_rewrite
>>> are the other two). All have their benefits and drawbacks. I just don't
>>> accept "parsing all .html for PHP wastes resources" as a general rule
>>> without knowing more details. Especially if all pages contain PHP as in
>>> this case - then the "waste" would be exactly the same with .php URLs.
>> If you can ensure that there never will be plain HTML pages
>
> We are talking about a single site or even a single directory, not about
> the entire server.
>
>> then the load
>> will be the same, but as you can't and the OP wrote, not all of the pages
>> contains PHP
>
> dorayme wrote:
>
> | All the files have php in them.
>
> <news:doraymeRidThis-5DAAB1.09123607092007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
>
>> so there will be waist of CPU capacity parsing all HTML as PHP.
>
> There would be much more waste if you have to rename a file from .html
> to .php and redirect all old links to the new one.
>
> Micha
Not at all. A redirect is quite fast and efficient. And the redirect
doesn't need to be done forever.
It wouldn't have been necessary if the files had been named correctly in
the first place. And the sooner a bad decision like this is corrected,
the better it will be.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|