Dreamweaver - Advantage/Disadvantage to SSI?

Author

Advantage/Disadvantage to SSI?

GLH35

2006-02-12, 6:30 pm

I'm a relative newbie when it comes to web design (and no I don't consider
"newbie" to be an offensive term). I helped a friend revise his website and I
used PV7's popmenu navigation and included it as a SSI. It works perfectly!
Then I decided that maybe I'd include a simple footer on the bottom of the page
as a SSI as well. It's just a div with right and left floated text. It also
works perfectly. My question is: Is there an advantage (other than being able
to change the include file if I want to add/delete something) or disadvantage
to using a SSI to include such a simple bit of coding? Was this a good use of
SSI or is there a downside that I'm not aware of? I was thinking that I could
also include the header, or a form, etc. Is this wise? Just wondering.
Thanks!
Glen

Electrodesign

2006-02-12, 6:30 pm

I use SSI's as a way to update a news page on my site.
I need to do this on a weekly basis and can do it much more easily by updating a Word document then uploading that rather than the whole page.

Lionstone

2006-02-12, 6:30 pm

The obvious advantage is that you can update a single file and change all
pages in your site. Putting your header in an SSI would probably be
helpful. Putting a form in an SSI would probably not - how many pages have
the same form? Probably just one. Don't use an include for the sake of
using an include. :)

The only real downside to them is getting them set up properly in the first
place. Some hosts don't allow them, some require your page to have certain
extensions, etc. Seems you've already passed this hurdle. If your site is
dynamic (ASP, PHP), then your pages are already being parsed, so using SSI
adds no real cost to your pages. If your site is HTML only, adding SSI will
add some very small cost to serving your pages, as the server must parse and
then assemble each page when it's requested. This cost is not high, and
will be imperceptable to your users.

Glen

2006-02-12, 6:31 pm

Thanks - yes I had to change all my pages to PHP extension to get the PV7
menu to work as a SSI. So that wasn't a problem. I can see the advantage
to being able to change content in a site with the include file. Probably I
am guilty of using "an include for the sake of using an include" when it
comes to the footer I added since it shouldn't need to change very often.
Thanks again for the info.
Glen
"Lionstone" <HIDElionstone@HIDEhushmail.com> wrote in message
news:dsd88g$iqd$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> The obvious advantage is that you can update a single file and change all
> pages in your site. Putting your header in an SSI would probably be
> helpful. Putting a form in an SSI would probably not - how many pages
> have the same form? Probably just one. Don't use an include for the sake
> of using an include. :)
>
> The only real downside to them is getting them set up properly in the
> first place. Some hosts don't allow them, some require your page to have
> certain extensions, etc. Seems you've already passed this hurdle. If
> your site is dynamic (ASP, PHP), then your pages are already being parsed,
> so using SSI adds no real cost to your pages. If your site is HTML only,
> adding SSI will add some very small cost to serving your pages, as the
> server must parse and then assemble each page when it's requested. This
> cost is not high, and will be imperceptable to your users.
>
>

Joe Makowiec

2006-02-12, 6:31 pm

On 08 Feb 2006 in macromedia.dreamweaver, GLH35 wrote:

> I'm a relative newbie when it comes to web design (and no I don't
> consider "newbie" to be an offensive term). I helped a friend
> revise his website and I used PV7's popmenu navigation and included
> it as a SSI. It works perfectly! Then I decided that maybe I'd
> include a simple footer on the bottom of the page as a SSI as well.
> It's just a div with right and left floated text. It also works
> perfectly. My question is: Is there an advantage (other than being
> able to change the include file if I want to add/delete something)
> or disadvantage to using a SSI to include such a simple bit of
> coding? Was this a good use of SSI or is there a downside that I'm
> not aware of? I was thinking that I could also include the header,
> or a form, etc. Is this wise? Just wondering.

Personally, I see no real downside to using SSIs, as long as you
understand what you're doing, particularly with respect to paths. The
HUGE advantage is that you change one (generally fairly small) file,
upload it, and your whole site changes. It leads to consistency
through the site and ease of changing code sitewide.

The advantages increase as number of files in the site increase. The
only real downside that I know of is that, because each file has to be
processed by the server, there is a slightly greater load on the
server. Another downside is that if you're dedicated to using a visual
coding environment (ie you have to see what the site looks like in your
HTML editor), SSIs can be problematic for display.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

Donna Casey

2006-02-12, 6:31 pm

besides the advantages already given by others, ssi has the potential to
serve as the components of a template, effectively replacing the need to
dw templates.

It also can "hide" the interface of a site from the editor of the
content, if done correctly. Less sophisticated users may be quite
capable of opening a .htm document in Dreamweaver, copying word content,
and using Paste Special to paste the content keeping block-level
formatting. They upload that page, overwriting the old version, and the
css styles the content.

If you set up a Word template for the client to use for editing, this
works really well. Then you can control the tags available to the editor.

For the downside disadvantages, you have to use temp preview to see
includes in local preview. Or, upload to the server to preview remotely.
But that is a minor nuisance, imo.

For the extension needing to trigger server parsing, if you plan for it,
it isn't an issue. And it may be possible to have your server parse all
files, even if using .htm or .html It's really a server setting,
though not all hosting accounts will allow the change.

:D

Glen

2006-02-12, 6:31 pm

Yes - I can see the advantage. For example - On our personal business site
we needed to add a fax number to the footer. I had to go to each page and
add the code, etc. I did a copy/paste thing, but still - it would have been
easier to just change the include file. Thanks for your input.
Glen
"Joe Makowiec" <makowiec@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9764803E6F0F8makowiecatnycapdotrE@216.104.212.96...
> On 08 Feb 2006 in macromedia.dreamweaver, GLH35 wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I see no real downside to using SSIs, as long as you
> understand what you're doing, particularly with respect to paths. The
> HUGE advantage is that you change one (generally fairly small) file,
> upload it, and your whole site changes. It leads to consistency
> through the site and ease of changing code sitewide.
>
> The advantages increase as number of files in the site increase. The
> only real downside that I know of is that, because each file has to be
> processed by the server, there is a slightly greater load on the
> server. Another downside is that if you're dedicated to using a visual
> coding environment (ie you have to see what the site looks like in your
> HTML editor), SSIs can be problematic for display.
>
> --
> Joe Makowiec
> http://makowiec.net/
> Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com

2006-02-12, 6:31 pm

Lionstone wrote:
> The obvious advantage is that you can update a single file and change
> all pages in your site. Putting your header in an SSI would probably
> be helpful. Putting a form in an SSI would probably not - how many
> pages have the same form? Probably just one. Don't use an include
> for the sake of using an include. :)

I can see an advantage of using SSI for a single form.
I find it very convenient when it comes to re-use that markup in other sites
I develop. No need to create over and over the same form, fieldset, labels,
input fields, etc. I copy the file from one site to another and I'm done ;-)

--
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com | CSS-P Templates + Articles:
CSS Popups, CSS 3 Column Layout, CSS Tabs, CSS Dropdown Menu,
TIP Method, Sliced Images, Clean Popup Windows, Easy Maintenance.....

Lionstone

2006-02-12, 6:34 pm

"Glen" <ghornbac@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dsd8ml$jbp$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Thanks - yes I had to change all my pages to PHP extension to get the PV7
> menu to work as a SSI. So that wasn't a problem. I can see the advantage
> to being able to change content in a site with the include file. Probably
> I am guilty of using "an include for the sake of using an include" when it
> comes to the footer I added since it shouldn't need to change very often.
> Thanks again for the info.
> Glen

No, the footer is a perfect example of when it's GOOD to use one. :)
It may hardly ever change, but the point is that it's the exact same thing
on every page. Modular code is good, even if some modules don't change
much.

Glen

2006-02-12, 6:34 pm

Thanks to all for the good info! I've learned alot from this forum - its a
great resource.
Glen
"Donna Casey" <infoREMOVETHIS@n2dreamweaver.com> wrote in message
news:dsdbjt$ndc$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> besides the advantages already given by others, ssi has the potential to
> serve as the components of a template, effectively replacing the need to
> dw templates.
>
> It also can "hide" the interface of a site from the editor of the content,
> if done correctly. Less sophisticated users may be quite capable of
> opening a .htm document in Dreamweaver, copying word content, and using
> Paste Special to paste the content keeping block-level formatting. They
> upload that page, overwriting the old version, and the css styles the
> content.
>
> If you set up a Word template for the client to use for editing, this
> works really well. Then you can control the tags available to the editor.
>
> For the downside disadvantages, you have to use temp preview to see
> includes in local preview. Or, upload to the server to preview remotely.
> But that is a minor nuisance, imo.
>
> For the extension needing to trigger server parsing, if you plan for it,
> it isn't an issue. And it may be possible to have your server parse all
> files, even if using .htm or .html It's really a server setting, though
> not all hosting accounts will allow the change.
>
> :D