Thoughts on

Re: Thoughts on

"Ian" wrote[color=blue]
> I wanted to get anybodys thoughts on using the following...
>
> <script src="http://test.com/myscript.js"></script>
>
> for including functions etc in the html page, of course I could embed all
> the functions but wondered if anybody thinks that this is a more organised
> way or should I stay clear and always insert the function of javascript
> directly into the html
>
> Any thoughts?[/color]

Should I buy apples or pears? As so often, it depends. Each separate file
takes its size plus a bit (the making of the request) to download, so
keeping the number of files to a minumum is good. But if code is used on
multiple pages, it is better to allow browsers to make use of their caches
(it 's what they 're for), repeatedly downloading the same thing is foolish
of course.
If you can do serverside includes, maintaining code that is included in each
page can be done centrally, otherwise there might be an extra argument for
..js files.
HTH
Ivo

Re: Thoughts on

thanks for the reply!

Ah server side includes, meaning that the Client Javascript is inserted on
the server before it is sent to the client?? Is this correct?

I am using asp.net C# ... any ideas how to use server side includes to
insert the client javascript?

Thanks

Ian


"Ivo" <no@thank.you > wrote in message
news:40bef3cc$0 $1737$abc4f4c3@ news.wanadoo.nl ...[color=blue]
> "Ian" wrote[color=green]
> > I wanted to get anybodys thoughts on using the following...
> >
> > <script src="http://test.com/myscript.js"></script>
> >
> > for including functions etc in the html page, of course I could embed[/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green]
> > the functions but wondered if anybody thinks that this is a more[/color][/color]
organised[color=blue][color=green]
> > way or should I stay clear and always insert the function of javascript
> > directly into the html
> >
> > Any thoughts?[/color]
>
> Should I buy apples or pears? As so often, it depends. Each separate file
> takes its size plus a bit (the making of the request) to download, so
> keeping the number of files to a minumum is good. But if code is used on
> multiple pages, it is better to allow browsers to make use of their caches
> (it 's what they 're for), repeatedly downloading the same thing is[/color]
foolish[color=blue]
> of course.
> If you can do serverside includes, maintaining code that is included in[/color]
each[color=blue]
> page can be done centrally, otherwise there might be an extra argument for
> .js files.
> HTH
> Ivo
>
>[/color]