Related
I actually ran into a problem today. I have got a site where multiple pages have the same layout. Today I had to change a thing on this layout and had to change every single page. This made me think about solutions for this.
So, my question:
Would the performance and loading speed of the website be affected if I had the layout HTML in one single file and read it using PHP on every page? This would make it a lot easier for me, since I only had to change the layout in that single file.
Also, how should I read this file. At the moment, I would use the following code:
for ($count=0; $count < $dirAmount; $count++) {
$path = " //path\\ ";
$fileText = split("--", file_get_contents($path));
echo " //code\\ "
unset($fileText);
}
But would there be a faster way?
BTW, if this is too trivial, please note. I couldn't find much other information that actually was clear enough to help.
Simply use php's include or require to include the file.
It will affect performance a little bit, but that tiny little performance cost is insignificant compared to the ease of having one file you can use in multiple places.
One suggestion would be to use full file paths on include/require statements. Normalizing a relative file path can be expensive; giving PHP the absolute path (or even “./file.inc”) avoids the extra step. - Source
I would suggest you consider using smarty or twig if you want to start using templates for your website. Those engines optimize page loads by pre-caching pages and optimizing them to load as quickly as possible.
As for your original question, no, especially if the file was called repeatedly by the entire website, it would most likely get cached into RAM and load pretty fast since it was being called often. As Cerbus mentioned, using include or require would probably be the fastest way to process the files.
I am new to Javascript and development in general and have an absolute beginner's question: I would like to know more about the advantages and disadvantages of the following two constellations, especially regarding execution speed and server load/requests.
Put all custom JS code inside PHP code and call it from there
Put all custom JS code inside a custom.js and just call the JS functions in PHP
On the one hand I prefer to keep all my JS code separated to have things tidy and clean but on the other hand I imagine that it takes longer to load the page due to an additional server request. Will there be a noticeable speed difference when I put all code in a custom JS file? Are there any specific scenarios where it's recommend to put the JS inside the PHP or keep it separated?
Thanks
Http requests run in parallel, so loading a js file may not be noticeable at all, assuming you have to wait for images and other assets to load as well. The benefits outweigh the potential drawback.
As an added bonus, js files are normally cached, while html is reloaded each time a page is requested.
NOTE: If you have a significant number of scripts, you will have problems with load speed since browsers have limits of how many requests can be made in parallel. In this case you should be looking into minifying and combining them. Try code.google.com/p/minify for automatic minification using php.
Last: Having js code in php is terrible for maintainability.
JS in separate file - additional request. But I would not say that is a problem because it will be cached by browser. If you have a lot of js files - collect them into a single file to avoid multiple requests (there are special tools to compile separate JS files into one file and minimize its size).
Placing it into PHP code is just terrible. It should be in separate file.
On the one hand I prefer to keep all my JS code separated to have things tidy and clean but on the other hand I imagine that it takes longer to parse the whole code.
Why? JS is executed on client side. Not on server side. PHP will not parse JS files. At the same time - if you will put a JS code in PHP file - PHP will need to echo it to browser and that is additional work for PHP engine. Plus, in PHP code it will be sent to browser any time when PHP is executed.
Always err on the side of clean readable code, lest you fall into the premature optimization trap.
You can always refactor underperforming code to make it faster, it's much harder to move from low-level optimizations to a more abstract design, than the other way around (abstract to low-level)
I was having a "discussion" with my manager today about the merits of using PHP includes and functions as a template to build websites more quickly and efficiently. He has been using Dreamweaver templates for years and sees it as really the best way to go. I would like to start using some different and more efficient methods for web creation, because we need to get through our projects faster. I would like to know in detail what would make Dreamweaver dwts better than using code to accomplish the same task, or vice versa.
His reasoning is:
When you change links on the dwt file, it changes links for every page made from that dwt.
Even if you move pages around in directories, it maintains links to images
Everyone in the company should do it one way, and this is the way he chose (there are two of us, with someone who's just started who needs to learn web design from the beginning, and he plans to teacher her the dwt method)
If you edit a site made with a dwt, you can't change anything in the template (it's grayed out), making it safer
If he's building sites with dwt, and I'm doing it with PHP includes, we can't edit each others' sites. It gets all over the place. When we have new employees in the future, it will get all crazy and people can't make changes to others' sites if they're out of the office.
I've been studying PHP these days, and am thrilled with how powerful it is for creating dynamic pages. The site in question which sparked this "discussion" is more or less static, so a dwt would work fine. However, I wanted to stretch my wings a bit, and the code was getting REALLY jumbled as the pages grew. So I chopped off the header, footer, and sidebar, and brought them in to all the pages with a php include, as well as dynamically assigned the title, meta data, and description for each page using variables echoed in the header.The reasons I like this better are:
It's cleaner. If every page contains all the data for the header and footer, as well as the extra tags Dreamweaver throws in there, then I have to sift through everything to find where I need to be.
It's safer. It's sort of like the above reason dwts are safe, except I do all my code editing in a text editor like Coda. So on occasion I have accidentally deleted a dwt-protected line of code because those rules only apply within dreamweaver. I can't chop off part of the header if I can't see it. Incidentally, this makes it easier to identify bugs.
It's modern. I look through source when I see great pages made by designers and design firms I admire. I've never seen dwt tags. I believe by using PHP to dynamically grab files and perform other tasks that keeps me from having to go through and change something on every page, life becomes easier, and keeps things streamlined and up-to-date with current web trends and standards.
It's simple. This should be at the top of the list. Like I said we have to train a new person in how to create for the web. Isn't it much better for her to learn a simple line of PHP and get an understanding for how the language works, rather than learn an entire piece of (not exactly user-friendly) software just for the purpose of keeping her work the exact same as everyone else's? On that note, I believe PHP is a powerful tool in a web designer's arsenal, and it would be a sin to prevent her from learning it for the sake of uniformity.
It's fast. Am I mistaken in my thought that a page build with header and footer includes loads faster than one big page with everything in it? Or does that just apply when the body is loaded dynamically with AJAX?
I did extensive searching on Google and Stack Overflow on this topic and this is the most relevant article I could find:
Why would one use Dreamweaver Templates over PHP or Javascript for templating?
The answer is helpful, but I would really like to understand in more detail why exactly we shouldn't switch to a new method if it's simpler and has more potential. My manager insists that "the result is the same, so if there isn't something that makes me say, 'oh wow that's amazing and much better!', then we should just stay how we are now."
(I do apologize for the length of this question, but the guidelines asked that I be as specific as possible.)
Like I said in comments, without knowing what exactly sites you are working with it's hard to tell which PHP features are most important to showcase. However, I can try and describe the most simple kind of sites I was dealing with, and where and how PHP came in handy. If you work with something more complicated, the need of programming language may only increase.
The simple website may have a few different pages with text and images. I'm assuming nothing interactive (i.e. no inquiry form), no large amount of structured data (i.e. no product catalog), only one design template which is used by every page with no differences whatsoever. Here's the typical structure:
One PHP file (index.php) for handling all sorts of php-ish stuff
One design file (template.php for example) for storing everything html-ish (including header, footer and more. Basically all html with placeholders for text and menu)
One CSS file for, well, the site CSS
Most of the texts are stored in database or (worst case) just txt files. Menu (navigation) is stored in database as well
Images folder with all the needed images
The key features here are:
Simplicity. You only have as many files and code as you really need to keep things organized and clear
Reusability. You can basically copy/paste your php code with little to no changes for a new similar website
No duplicates whatsoever.
Data and design separation. Wanna change texts, fix typos? You do it without as much as touching design (html) files. Wanna make a completely brand new design for your website? You can do it without even knowing what those texts are or where they are kept.
like deceze said, no lock-ins. Use whatever software you like. (Including Dreamweaver)
PHP is responsible for taking texts, menus, design and rendering them all into a web page. If website is in more than 1 language, PHP code choose the right texts for the language of visitors choice.
If texts are stored in database, you don't even need notepad and ftp. You just need, i.e., phpMyAdmin (stored in server) so you can connect directly to database and edit any text you like using only web browser; from anywhere in the world. (I am assuming no real CMS). If you need to add one more page, you connect to database using myAdmin and browser, enter the page name (for menu) in 1 or more languages, enter the text for new page (in 1 or more languages), done! new page created, name placed in the menu, all hyperlinks generated for you. If you need to remove a page, you connect to database and click delete. If you need to hide a page for a while (i.e. for proof reading before publishing), you connect to database and uncheck "published" box.
All this doesn't come with just using database ofcourse, you need to program these features with PHP. It may take about 1 - 3 hours depending on experience and the code is fully reusable for every similar website in the future. Basically you just copy/paste php file, copy/paste database tables, enter new text and menu into database, put placeholders into your html file and done! brand new site created.
Which immediately makes most of the reasoning for DWT irrelevant. You don't move files around because you have only one html file and no directories, you don't need grayed out template because texts/images (content) and template are not even in the same file, there's no such thing as changing links in dwt file because it's PHP that generates them on the fly (these are not real links to real html files but rather links with parameters to tell PHP which exactly page must be rendered.. because remember we have just 1 file). The bottom line is, comparing features of the two side by side is like comparing features of a sword vs machinegun. Sharpness and length of the blade concepts are meaningless in a case of machinegun; while lifetime sword user won't really get the meaning of velocity and caliber before he tries and uses machinegun. And yet, while you can't compare their features one by one, no one brings sword to a gunfight for a reason :)
As for #3, currently there are many more people working with PHP than DWT (in a case you will need more employees in the future, or if other people will need to work with your websites later, etc.) As for #5, you can edit PHP websites with Dreamweaver as fine as DWT websites.
That's just off the top of my head. I wrote this in my lunch break so I likely forgot or missed quite a few things. I hope you will get a proper answer with detailed DWT vs PHP comparison too.
You simply can't compare PHP vs. DWT.
PHP is a programming language, where templating is just one of it's numerous features, and DWT is just a silly proprietary system to build simple web pages.
there is actually nothing to compare.
I would say that using DWT templates over PHP do have some advantages.
It does not need any extra server-side process, like PHP to process the files at the server.
You can serve all files to the user as .html files rather than .php files, though I suspect that it is possible to hide the .php extension. Why should any user see anything other than .html?
You don't have to learn PHP syntax/programming. It is true that you can do more with PHP that plain .dwt files but for plain templating the .dwt files can be just as clean.
It is not true that .dwt files are a lock-in technology. The feature is also implemented by other web editors, e.g. Microsoft Expression Web.
I have a few pages out (not too many though) and I was just thinking that I might want to change all of the pages to php instead of html. I am planning on using php in the future, I am just not quite ready yet to make it my full-time language. I know anythign you can do with html pages, you can do with php pages, but I just wanted to know, is there any reasons to stay with html compared to switching to PHP before my site gets too big and I wind up having to change 100 pages, and renaming hundreds of links?
The only reason I can think of is a small hit in performance.
Most web servers like Apache, LightTPD are configured to serve .html files as static files while .php files will have to first go through the PHP engine to be interpreted and only then delivered to the client.
Your pages will still be HTML. PHP allows websites to be generated dynamically, that is, you can display a username for users. However, what is sent to the browser is still HTML.
I recommend that you start switching to PHP because even if you choose not to use PHP, your pages will still work and render fine. However, if you stick with .html and then decide to switch to PHP, then you'll have to convert every single link. So convert now, and save time.
One thing I should note: It is possible, but usually not done, to have .html pages render as PHP by modifying server settings. However, in most cases, the .php is used, as most servers are already configured to run .php though the PHP engine. But in case anyone with a large site has this question, this is an option.
You pretty much answered your own question. If you ever reach the stage where you want to add dynamic content to an HTML document, you're going to need to change the file extension, or alter the webserver configuration to have PHP process .html files.
Generally, you will want every page to contain, if not dynamic content, then at least consistent content. Things like headers and footers, that require a massive amount of copy-pasting in straight HTML or a single include() in php. PHP allows for much cleaner organization and much less repetition, even if you're not after dynamic content for your pages.
The extension doesn't really matter. the PHP marker won't have any real effect until you begin embedding the tags into the files to engage the script processor.
Although it's true that you can do anything with PHP that you can do with HTML, the contrary is not true. With PHP you can do things that are not possible with HTML. Specifically, you can create dynamic pages with PHP, that is, pages whose contents are not fixed once you've written them.
If your pages are static, then you should continue to use HTML, if you need dynamic content, then you must use PHP (or another template/programming language).
why stay with just html when u can have both? u can have static html pages for static content and php pages for dynamic content. You can manage not just links but almost everything with php. I am creating a site with just 30 pages and I can say, while I do have both php and html, some things get out of hand (links, templates, data, etc). Imagine having 70 more...
Well, there aren't that many disadvantages maybe except for the fact that you might end up with this sort of code
So I have seen some comments on various web sites, pages, and questions I have asked about separating php and html.
I assume this means doing this:
<?php
myPhpStuff();
?>
<html>
<?php
morePhpStuff();
?>
Rather than:
<?php
doPhpStuff();
echo '<html>';
?>
But why does this matter? Is it really important to do or is it a preference?
Also it seems like when I started using PHP doing something like breaking out of PHP in a while loop would cause errors. Perhaps this is not true anymore or never was.
I made a small example with this concept but to me it seems so messy:
<?php
$cookies = 100;
while($cookies > 0)
{
$cookies = $cookies -1;
?>
<b>Fatty has </b><?php echo $cookies; ?> <b>cookies left.</b><br>
<?php
}
?>
Are there instances when it is just better to have the HTML inside the PHP?
<?php
$cookies = 100;
while($cookies > 0)
{
$cookies = $cookies -1;
echo'<b>Fatty has </b> '.$cookies.' <b>cookies left.</b><br>';
}
?>
When people talk about separating PHP and HTML they are probably referring to the practice of separating a website's presentation from the code that is used to generate it.
For example, say you had a DVD rental website and on the homepage you showed a list of available DVDs. You need to do several things: get DVD data from a database, extract and/or format that data and maybe mix some data from several tables. format it for output, combine the DVD data with HTML to create the webpage the user is going to see in their browser.
It is good practice to separate the HTML generation from the rest of the code, this means you can easily change your HTML output (presentation) without having to change the business logic (the reading and manipulation of data). And the opposite is true, you can change your logic, or even your database, without having to change your HTML.
A common pattern for this is called MVC (model view controller).
You might also want to look at the Smarty library - it's a widely used PHP library for separating presentation and logic.
Let's make it clear what is not separation
you switch from php mode to html mode
you use print or echo statements to write out html code
you use small php snipplets inside html files
If you do this, there is no separation at all, no matter if you escape from php to html blocks or do it the other way and put php code into html.
Have a look at a good templating engine, there are a plenty of reasons in the "why use ...." parts of the manuals. I'd suggert www.smarty.net especially http://www.smarty.net/whyuse.php
It will answer all your questions now you have.
It is very important to separate application logic from presentation logic in projects. The benefits include:
Readability: Your code will be much easier to read if it does not mix PHP and HTML. Also, HTML can become difficult to read if its stored and escaped in PHP strings.
Reusability: If you hard-code HTML strings within PHP code, the code will be very specifc to your project and it won't be possible to reuse your code in later projects. On the other hand, if you write small functions that do one task at a time, and put HTML into separate template files, reusing your code in future projects will be possible and much easier.
Working in a team: If you are working in a team that contains developers and designers, separation of application logic and presentation templates will be advantageous to both. Developers will be able to work on the application without worrying about the presentation, and designers (who don't necessarily know PHP very will) will be able to create and update templates without messing with PHP code.
for pages that contain a lot of HTML, embedding PHP code into the page could be easier. this is one of the first intentions behind PHP. anyway when you are developing an application with lots and lots of logic, different types of connectivity, data manipulation, ... your PHP code gets too complicated if you want to just embed them in the same pages that are shown to users. and then the story of maintenance begins. how are you going to change something in the code, fix a bug, add a new feature?
the best way is to separate your logic (where most of the code is PHP) in different files (even directories) from your page files (where most of the code is HTML, XML, CSV, ...).
this has been a concern for developers for so many years and there are recommendations to handle these general problems, that are called design patterns.
since not everyone has the experience, and can apply these design patterns into his application, some experienced developers create Frameworks, that will help other developers to use all the knowledge and experience laying in the hear of that framework.
when you look at toady's most used PHP frameworks, you see that all of them put code into PHP Classes in special directories, make configurations, and .... in none of these files you see a line of HTML. but there are special files that are used to show the results to users, and they have a lot of HTML, so you can embed your PHP values inside those HTML pages to show to users. but remember that these values are not calculated on the same page, they are results of a lot of other PHP codes, written in other PHP files that have no HTML in them.
I find it preferable to separate application logic from the view file (done well with CodeIgniter framework with MVC) as it leaves code looking relatively tidy and understandable. I have also found that separating the two leaves less margin for PHP errors, if the HTML elements are separated from the PHP there is a smaller amount of PHP that can go wrong.
Ultimately I believe it is down to preference however I feel that separation has the following pros:
Tidier Code
Less of an Error Margin
Easy to Interpret
Easier to change HTML elements
Easier to changed Application Logic
Faster Loading (HTML is not going from Parser->Browser it goes straight to browser)
However some cons may be:
It only works in PHP5 (I Believe, could be wrong, correct if needed)
It may not be what one is used to
Untidy if done incorrectly (without indentation etc, however this is the same with anything)
But as you can see, the pros outweigh said cons. Try not to mix the two also, some separation and some intergration - this may get confusing for yourself and other developers that work with you.
I hope this helped.
Benefits of the first method (separating PHP and HTML):
You don't need to escape characters
It's also possible for code editors
to highlight/indent the markup.
It's arguably easier to read
There is no downside to this method,
compared to the second method.
Functionally: they both will work, so ultimately it is a preference.
Yet, you might consider that comments are a preference as well, your code would compile and run exactly the same without comments. However most people would agree comments are essential to writing and maintaining good code. I see this as being a similar subject matter. In the long run it will make it easier to read and maintain the code it if the two are separated.
So is it important? I would say Yes.
I kick off with: the first one you can open in a WYSIWYG editor, and still see some markup, which might makes it easier to maintain.
It says that what you put in echo '' it is first processed by the programming language and then sent to the browser, but if you directly put there html code without php, that code will load faster because there is no programming involved.
And the second reason as people above said is that you should have your 'large programming code' stored separately of the html code, and in the html code just put some calls to print results like 'echo $variable'. Or use a template engine like Smarty (like I do).
Best regards,
Alexandru.
Ouch!
All of the examples in your question are perfectly impossible to read. I'd say, you do yourself and those, who might read your code a great favour and use a template engine of sorts, say, Smarty. It is extremely easy to set up and use and it WILL separate your code from presentation. It doesn't require you to put everything in classes, it just makes sure, that your logic is in one file and presentation - in another one.
I don't know how in php but in asp.net separation has the following advantages.
1. separated code is easy to understand and develop
2. designer can work in html in the same time developer can write a code