php include design question

[Floortje]

Re: php include design question

Mark wrote:

Which frameworks? The only other site that I've seen doing this is
deviantART. It seems to use AJAX to load the main content and sidebar
separately, but gracefully downgrades if you disable JavaScript.
>
That means that you need a file containing just the bare content so
that you can load it into the page when navigating through the
sidebar, but it needs to load the entire page when you access it
directly... unless you have two copies of every page, one with the
header and footer and one without, but that sounds terrible.
>
If you could point me to some frameworks that do this, it would be
much appreciated. I don't even know what to search for.

ZEND CakePHP symfony Codeigniter PRADO for example but really anything
will do. Any simple cms will also have this option ot atleast a plugin
to make this happen.

[Mark]

Re: php include design question

On Aug 14, 12:10 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de wrote:

.oO(Mark)
>
>
>

On Aug 14, 10:30 am, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de wrote:

.oO(Mark)

>

so, i'm making a website. let's say i have header.php, footer.php and
content.php.

>

now in index.php I simply want to include the 3 pages. easy enough to
do.
but let's say the user navigates to mysite.com/content.php. now the
header and footer will appear to be missing.
so now the question is, how can i include the header and footer in
content.php only if the page isn't already nested?

>

Why do you want the content.php to be callable? Includes should be
stored outside the document root, so that they can't be reached by a
URL. Then you won't have this problem at all.

>

Micha

>

Well, how else are people going to bookmark a particular page, or link
it to their friends? If I don't make it accessible somehow, the only
way people will be able to get to it is by going through the index.

>
It's still not exactly clear what you want. If the content.php just
contains the content of a single page, then it should not be directly
callable, as said. But if it's an entire page instead, then there's no
point in including it in the index.php ... what am I missing?
Micha

I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
whether its called directly.

Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
content.php with content2.php using ajax. Easy enough to do. *But* I
also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
+content).

Anyway, I did manage to find a way to do this by passing a parameter
through ajax which tells it if it should be "bare" or "full". Except I
ran into some issues where it wouldn't always load the page... so I'm
sticking with a non-ajax site for now...

There really needs to be a better way to do this. Most sites use the
same and header and footer across all pages, there's really no need to
reload them every time a user clicks a link.

[sheldonlg]

Re: php include design question

Mark wrote:

I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
whether its called directly.
>
Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
content.php with content2.php using ajax. Easy enough to do. *But* I
also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
+content).

Why not simply have:
header.php
footer.php
inside1.php
inside2.php

index.php = header.php + inside1.php + footer.php (via includes)
content2.php = header.php + inside2.php + footer.php (via includes)

Why do you even need AJAX for this?

I like a design that has something like this for page foo.php:

<?php
include 'php_header.php '; // Has things like session_start() , etc.
$title = 'This is page foo";
include 'foo_process.ph p';
$html_include = 'foo_html.php';
include 'template.php';
?>

and then I would have in template.php all the basic html stuff, with an
include of header.inc.php and footer.inc.php and in the content area I have
<?php include $html_include; ?>

That gives the same presentation over all pages and separates the page
processing and page content presentation into two files which are
included. All files for a page are tied together by the name "foo" and
the page is callable as mysite.com/foo.php. To handle the form submit,
I could either have it done in foo_process.php , or have a separate file
foo_submit.php. Either way works. The point is that with this kind of
arrangement you have consistency, yet have independent callable pages.

[Michael Fesser]

Re: php include design question

..oO(Mark)

>I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
>friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
>the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
>whether its called directly.
>
>Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
>footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
>content.php with content2.php using ajax.

Bad idea for at least two reasons:

1) It requires JavaScript, which is not always available.
2) The browser's address bar won't reflect the change, hence it would be
impossible to bookmark these pages.

>Easy enough to do. *But* I
>also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
>send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
>contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
>+content).

Drop the entire AJAX idea, you don't really need it. In fact AJAX may
cause severe usability and accessibility problems if not used properly.
Instead build simple, flat pages, which include the header and footer.
It's easy, reliable and efficient.

>There really needs to be a better way to do this. Most sites use the
>same and header and footer across all pages, there's really no need to
>reload them every time a user clicks a link.

You're trying to over-optimize and will cause new problems with that
approach. There's nothing wrong with reloading header and footer on
every page. Images (if there are any) are cached and some KB of HTML
don't really matter. One URL, one document. It's that easy.

Micha

[AqD]

Re: php include design question

For files with only functions and classes (no html output), you could
just use require_once().
For html output ones, I strongly suggest you to choose one uniform
style: either use the index.php to include header/footer and
content.php and all other contents (act as the central dispatcher), or
each of the user-reachable php files includes header/footer manually
by require() - which is simple but requires code duplication.

On Aug 14, 7:41 am, Mark <mnbaya...@gmai l.comwrote:

so, i'm making a website. let's say i have header.php, footer.php and
content.php.
>
now in index.php I simply want to include the 3 pages. easy enough to
do.
but let's say the user navigates to mysite.com/content.php. now the
header and footer will appear to be missing.
so now the question is, how can i include the header and footer in
content.php only if the page isn't already nested?
>
i suppose i can include a variable in header.php that basically says
"i've been included", and then in content.php if this variable isn't
set, i could include them... is this the best/most elegant approach?

[Mark]

Re: php include design question

On Aug 21, 12:28 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de wrote:

.oO(Mark)
>

I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
whether its called directly.

>

Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
content.php with content2.php using ajax.

>
Bad idea for at least two reasons:
>
1) It requires JavaScript, which is not always available.
2) The browser's address bar won't reflect the change, hence it would be
   impossible to bookmark these pages.
>

Easy enough to do. *But* I
also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
+content).

>
Drop the entire AJAX idea, you don't really need it. In fact AJAX may
cause severe usability and accessibility problems if not used properly.
Instead build simple, flat pages, which include the header and footer.
It's easy, reliable and efficient.
>

There really needs to be a better way to do this. Most sites use the
same and header and footer across all pages, there's really no need to
reload them every time a user clicks a link.

>
You're trying to over-optimize and will cause new problems with that
approach. There's nothing wrong with reloading header and footer on
every page. Images (if there are any) are cached and some KB of HTML
don't really matter. One URL, one document. It's that easy.
>
Micha

1. That's the second reason it should be directly callable. It
downgrades nicely. It will work both with and without Javascript. With
Javascript enabled, it doesn't need to reload the headers and footers,
without JS, it does.
2. Actually, it will. It'll just contain a hash # symbol in the URL,
ie, mysite.com/#mypage. I can also inject the page into the history so
that the back, forward and bookmark buttons work.

In fact, I got the whole thing working exactly like I've said, but on
occasion Ajax would refuse to load a page. And I can't exactly have
that sort of instability...

Anyway, I guess you're right about the over-optimizing. I've scratched
the Ajax stuff altogether. I'll look at it again in the future if it
becomes a problem. Gmail and other sites (like DeviantART) do
something like what I was mentioning, so there must be a benefit to
it, and it's definitely do-able.

Thanks.
Mark

[Mark]

Re: php include design question

On Aug 22, 6:32 am, AqD <aquila.d...@gm ail.comwrote:

For files with only functions and classes (no html output), you could
just use require_once().
For html output ones, I strongly suggest you to choose one uniform
style: either use the index.php to include header/footer and
content.php and all other contents (act as the central dispatcher), or
each of the user-reachable php files includes header/footer manually
by require() - which is simple but requires code duplication.
>
On Aug 14, 7:41 am, Mark <mnbaya...@gmai l.comwrote:
>

so, i'm making a website. let's say i have header.php, footer.php and
content.php.

>

now in index.php I simply want to include the 3 pages. easy enough to
do.
but let's say the user navigates to mysite.com/content.php. now the
header and footer will appear to be missing.
so now the question is, how can i include the header and footer in
content.php only if the page isn't already nested?

>

i suppose i can include a variable in header.php that basically says
"i've been included", and then in content.php if this variable isn't
set, i could include them... is this the best/most elegant approach?

Unfortunately the circumstances force me to use a non-uniform style,
otherwise I'd happily stick with one.

Mark

[Mark]

Re: php include design question

On Aug 20, 4:32 am, sheldonlg <sheldonlgwrote :

Mark wrote:

I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
whether its called directly.

>

Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
content.php with content2.php using ajax. Easy enough to do. *But* I
also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
+content).

>
Why not simply have:
header.php
footer.php
inside1.php
inside2.php
>
index.php = header.php + inside1.php + footer.php  (via includes)
content2.php = header.php + inside2.php + footer.php (via includes)
>
Why do you even need AJAX for this?
>
I like a design that has something like this for page foo.php:
>
<?php
include 'php_header.php ';  // Has things like session_start() , etc.
$title = 'This is page foo";
include 'foo_process.ph p';
$html_include = 'foo_html.php';
include 'template.php';
?>
>
and then I would have in template.php all the basic html stuff, with an
include of header.inc.php and footer.inc.php and in the content area I have
<?php include $html_include; ?>
>
That gives the same presentation over all pages and separates the page
processing and page content presentation into two files which are
included.  All files for a page are tied together by the name "foo" and
the page is callable as mysite.com/foo.php.  To handle the form submit,
I could either have it done in foo_process.php , or have a separate file
foo_submit.php.  Either way works.  The point is that with this kind of
arrangement you have consistency, yet have independent callable pages.

I don't *need* Ajax, it's simply an efficiency thing. And I detest the
idea of having parallel files like that, but thanks for the suggestion
anyway. When I'm not using Ajax, I normally use a similar approach. I
try to be consistent where possible.

Mark

[Curtis]

Re: php include design question

Mark wrote:

On Aug 21, 12:28 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de wrote:

>.oO(Mark)
>>

>>I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
>>friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
>>the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
>>whether its called directly.
>>Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
>>footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
>>content.php with content2.php using ajax.

>Bad idea for at least two reasons:
>>
>1) It requires JavaScript, which is not always available.
>2) The browser's address bar won't reflect the change, hence it would be
> impossible to bookmark these pages.
>>

>>Easy enough to do. *But* I
>>also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
>>send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
>>contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
>>+content).

>Drop the entire AJAX idea, you don't really need it. In fact AJAX may
>cause severe usability and accessibility problems if not used properly.
>Instead build simple, flat pages, which include the header and footer.
>It's easy, reliable and efficient.
>>

>>There really needs to be a better way to do this. Most sites use the
>>same and header and footer across all pages, there's really no need to
>>reload them every time a user clicks a link.

>You're trying to over-optimize and will cause new problems with that
>approach. There's nothing wrong with reloading header and footer on
>every page. Images (if there are any) are cached and some KB of HTML
>don't really matter. One URL, one document. It's that easy.

<snip>

Anyway, I guess you're right about the over-optimizing. I've scratched
the Ajax stuff altogether. I'll look at it again in the future if it
becomes a problem. Gmail and other sites (like DeviantART) do
something like what I was mentioning, so there must be a benefit to
it, and it's definitely do-able.

Their reasoning isn't necessarily optimization, it's to enhance the
web UI for the users, and make interacting more intuitive. However, in
Gmail, the user always has the option of using the standard HTML
interface.

If you're turning to "Ajax" to optimize things, you're either
optimizing prematurely, or not looking at the right places for dealing
with bottlenecks.

--
Curtis

[Mark]

Re: php include design question

On Sep 4, 2:10 am, Curtis <dye...@gmail.c omwrote:

Mark wrote:

On Aug 21, 12:28 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de wrote:

.oO(Mark)

>

>I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
>friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
>the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
>whether its called directly.
>Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
>footer.php. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
>content.php with content2.php using ajax.
Bad idea for at least two reasons:

>

1) It requires JavaScript, which is not always available.
2) The browser's address bar won't reflect the change, hence it would be
   impossible to bookmark these pages.

>

>Easy enough to do. *But* I
>also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
>send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
>contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
>+content).
Drop the entire AJAX idea, you don't really need it. In fact AJAX may
cause severe usability and accessibility problems if not used properly..
Instead build simple, flat pages, which include the header and footer.
It's easy, reliable and efficient.

>

>There really needs to be a better way to do this. Most sites use the
>same and header and footer across all pages, there's really no need to
>reload them every time a user clicks a link.
You're trying to over-optimize and will cause new problems with that
approach. There's nothing wrong with reloading header and footer on
every page. Images (if there are any) are cached and some KB of HTML
don't really matter. One URL, one document. It's that easy.

>
<snip>
>

 Anyway, I guess you're right about the over-optimizing. I've scratched
the Ajax stuff altogether. I'll look at it again in the future if it
becomes a problem. Gmail and other sites (like DeviantART) do
something like what I was mentioning, so there must be a benefit to
it, and it's definitely do-able.

>
Their reasoning isn't necessarily optimization, it's to enhance the
web UI for the users, and make interacting more intuitive. However, in
Gmail, the user always has the option of using the standard HTML
interface.
>
If you're turning to "Ajax" to optimize things, you're either
optimizing prematurely, or not looking at the right places for dealing
with bottlenecks.
>
--
Curtis

Actually, there was one other reason I wanted to use Ajax. I wanted
the menu and the main content to load separately from eachother. I'm
going to have a tree menu, that expands as you click on it. I don't
want to refresh the page the entire page every time a user clicks
something. Yes, I could use *just* javascript for that, but I suspect
there will be hundreds, or even thousands of entries one day, so I
don't necessarily want to load the whole thing at once. And when a
user clicks a category, the main page should show a more detailed
listing...but the idea is that the user doesn't have to wait for it to
load if he doesn't want to. Anyway, not a big deal just yet.

Mark

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: php include design question

Mark wrote:

On Sep 4, 2:10 am, Curtis <dye...@gmail.c omwrote:

>Mark wrote:

>>On Aug 21, 12:28 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de wrote:
>>>.oO(Mark)
>>>>I want it to be directly callable so that people can link their
>>>>friends to it. I just want to make sure its properly nested between
>>>>the header and footer at all times; whether it's inserted via ajax, or
>>>>whether its called directly.
>>>>Let's say that in index.php I include header.php, content.php and
>>>>footer.ph p. Then, a user clicks a link on the page. I want to swap out
>>>>content.p hp with content2.php using ajax.
>>>Bad idea for at least two reasons:
>>>1) It requires JavaScript, which is not always available.
>>>2) The browser's address bar won't reflect the change, hence it would be
>>> impossible to bookmark these pages.
>>>>Easy enough to do. *But* I
>>>>also want the URL to display mysite.com/content2.php so that users can
>>>>send that link to their friends. So in a sense, content2.php needs to
>>>>contain both just the bare content, and the full site (header+footer
>>>>+content) .
>>>Drop the entire AJAX idea, you don't really need it. In fact AJAX may
>>>cause severe usability and accessibility problems if not used properly.
>>>Instead build simple, flat pages, which include the header and footer.
>>>It's easy, reliable and efficient.
>>>>There really needs to be a better way to do this. Most sites use the
>>>>same and header and footer across all pages, there's really no need to
>>>>reload them every time a user clicks a link.
>>>You're trying to over-optimize and will cause new problems with that
>>>approach. There's nothing wrong with reloading header and footer on
>>>every page. Images (if there are any) are cached and some KB of HTML
>>>don't really matter. One URL, one document. It's that easy.

><snip>
>>

>> Anyway, I guess you're right about the over-optimizing. I've scratched
>>the Ajax stuff altogether. I'll look at it again in the future if it
>>becomes a problem. Gmail and other sites (like DeviantART) do
>>something like what I was mentioning, so there must be a benefit to
>>it, and it's definitely do-able.

>Their reasoning isn't necessarily optimization, it's to enhance the
>web UI for the users, and make interacting more intuitive. However, in
>Gmail, the user always has the option of using the standard HTML
>interface.
>>
>If you're turning to "Ajax" to optimize things, you're either
>optimizing prematurely, or not looking at the right places for dealing
>with bottlenecks.
>>
>--
>Curtis

>
Actually, there was one other reason I wanted to use Ajax. I wanted
the menu and the main content to load separately from eachother. I'm
going to have a tree menu, that expands as you click on it. I don't
want to refresh the page the entire page every time a user clicks
something. Yes, I could use *just* javascript for that, but I suspect
there will be hundreds, or even thousands of entries one day, so I
don't necessarily want to load the whole thing at once. And when a
user clicks a category, the main page should show a more detailed
listing...but the idea is that the user doesn't have to wait for it to
load if he doesn't want to. Anyway, not a big deal just yet.
>
Mark
>

As Curtis said - you're optimizing prematurely.

Only a very few sites in the world ever get "thousands" of entries.
Many don't even get "hundreds" of entries.

And even if you do - how long is an entry? 1K entries at 10 bytes
apiece is still only 10K - you probably have larger pictures than that.

If load time because a problem, then it's time to look at the problem.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===