d
wrote:
Here's
a hint - they couldn't give a rat's ass what the extension is.
Not everyone, but some people.
No most people! Take this thread as an example. You are arguing to have
.html at the end of every URL even if the file contains PHP or another
scripting language. At least 4 people in this thread alone disagree with you.
That would be 80% agree with me and 20% agree with you (with you, the only
person mind you, in your camp). By that very figure you are in the minority
and I'd venture to guess the the number of people who really, really care
about such trivial things such as yourself is probably closer to .1% in the
real population.
Now who's talking about ridiculously small
sample sizes. This is not a popularity contest. I am not so insecure
as to require pats on the back from my peers to be confident in what I'm
doing. I can look through my CV to see that I'm doing well. And I
would hardly assume a usenet group dedicated to coding PHP as representative of
the public at large :)
And if you cater for those people, it suddenly gets
very important.
Yes to all of those neurotic people I supposed...
No, as I said - if they pay your bills, you don't
leave anything to chance.
FTP requests are not HTTP.
So what? Should all files that are ftp'ed have a .ftp
extension?!?
We are talking about web servers, not FTP servers. I thought you
would understand that.
If your logic were to be taken
consistently then would it not likewise extend to to ftp? Come on Mr.
Consistency!
When your browser gets files from ftp://, it's not a web browser any more but an FTP
client.
No it's still a web browser, doing ftp protocol.
FTP is not part of the web. It's part of the internet, but not
part of the web. Again, I thought you would understand
that.
I do understand that - but my browser also understands ftp protocols as
well as many other types (gopher (remember gopher), mailto (a pseudo thing at
best but still - it's in there), telnet, ftp and others. There all part of the
RFCs. Indeed the whole thing about the browser and the World Wide Web was to
tie these desperate, different and confusing to the layperson protocols in a
point and click interface. That's why URL's were conceived and conceived to
handle not just http, but other protocol types. Just because http is the most
popular does not mean it's the only part of the web. Indeed that's one of the
very reasons why the original (well as of 3.0 and greater) Netscape included a
mail reader, news readers, etc.
Yes, but your WEB browser ceases to be a WEB
browser when it leaves the WEB - see?
I said pissing match, not pissing.
A pissing match starts when somebody starts pissing
junk.
Fantastic. Really great work.
Hey I can piss with
the best of them - or, in this case, the worse of them... :-)
I never said the server should parse MP3 files or whatever, as I'm
not generating them dynamically.
What does it matter if you are doing it dynamically or
not?
Apparently it does to you - as you want your dynamically-generated
content to be called .php, as that's how it should be "by
design".
I see no reason to change the fact that this web page came from a file
that had a .php extension. Indeed I see it as useful in that it is a sign that
the content is dynamic and/or generated as opposed to static. By renaming
things to html you lose that distinction, which can be helpful at times.
No, site design, project management, and good designers make up for
that.
The point about MP3 files is that if you
configure your web server to treat every file as potentially having dynamic
content and that it should search through the entire file looking to determine
exactly which language might be in use in the file and hand it off to the
appropriate parser, interpreter or module then you are gonna have to contend
with the fact that occasionally (and on some sites much more than occasionally)
you're gonna be charging the web server with reading and parsing potentially
huge files - all in the name of a foolish consistency.
I didn't say EVERY file. I said ..HTML
files. Please tell me where I said it should parse every single
file. Please do.
It's not a fetish. It's called presentation.
No it's called necrosis! As for presentation what's important is
CONTENT stupid!
When you start writing sites for big clients with
big requests and big ideas, that assertion will seem as foolish to you as it
does to me.
Just because you can't care less doesn't mean those
visiting your site don't.
As I said, I've never,
ever had anybody say "Great site but I won't use it until they have URL's that
end in .html".
My tests have shown, to me at least, that the performance hit is a
myth.
For 150 files, perhaps.
Repeatedly, about 50 times.
Yes, right, only after 3 of use pointed out that 150 files are not
statistically significant. Nor is 50 times of 150 files. A lot depends on the
sizes of the files, the configuration of the server, how much memory is
currently being used, how busy it is, etc. Again, your "test" is not
statistically significant. Come back to use after you've figured out how to do
thousands of hits a minute and run it for a few hours.
7500 requests to each server, which are housed on
the same box and are configured identically apart from how PHP is used, even
using the same document root, gives a good indication of performance. You
won't learn anything in hours of testing you didn't know after minutes, it's
just that the absolute difference in the numbers will be
larger.
It's not wasteful.
How could it not be? You do understand how computers work don't you?
You do understand that extra processing is indeed happening. You do
understand that under large numbers of accesses such small differences in
processing time add up don't you?!?
I also know how the PHP module works. I can see that the extra
processing is negligable compared to other factors affecting the
server. My tests have shown that.
No, they haven't.
They've strongly indicated that. I've yet to
see anything that says otherwise.
If what you say is true, my html test server should
have repeatedly out-performed the html-parsing one. It
didn't.
When you run such puny tests it's extremely hard to say. You are also not
in a controlled environment in any way, shape or form. A discrepancy such as
you claim can easily be explained but a small demand on the server from
anything from cron to a swap.
Please tell me about how you know about my setup
:) I'm intrigued to know ;)
You wouldn't want your design sloppy,
I don't find it sloppy. Indeed I find it very
logical.
Logical from the web server's perspective, not the user's.
As a user I find your answer odd. I also find it logical from a user's
perspective. I would find it illogical for it to say .html when I know that
.html represents static HTML yet I got a dynamic page!
HTML represents the content, not how the file was
generated.
As websites are coded to make the user happy, not the
webserver, that's a pretty poor excuse.
Yes you are using pretty poor excuses! Stop that!
Hardly.
so why your URLs? The site is a whole - asking someone to
ignore the mess in the address bar because "it's just the way the web
server works" is a bit silly. It's supposed to work for you, not
the other way round :)
Again, nobody cares about what characters are in the URL. If they did
they'd start screaming about the silly http:'s and the &parm=<long
assed string of junk characters> and the like. The .php or ..html at the
end is one of the least things to be concerned about!
Just saying "but nobody cares" doesn't make them not
care.
3 other people have repeated what I said - Nobody cares. You are the sole
person saying that people care. That's a 80 to 20% against (guess who?) -
YOU.
Oh ***! 3 people! From a newsgroup
filled with some really abysmal coders. Wow. What real peer review
that is. The Creme de la creme of development, surely.
And as for the query string - I agree with you. I
don't use query strings.
Your sites then must not have very much functionality or utility - but
their URLs look nice! ;-)
Tell that to the clients who pay lots of money for
them. They seem rather happy with them.
Just because it's least concerning doesn't make it not
concerning at all. It's like making a painting and putting it in a
crappy frame.
No, again, it's like making a painting then scribbling on the back of the
painting that nobody sees nor cares about.
But people do see the URLs. The URLs are used all the time.
--
If you take an Oriental person and spin him
around several times, does he become disoriented?
|
