Which is faster for plain includes, .SHTML or .ASP

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Which is faster for plain includes, .SHTML or .ASP

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969

    Default Which is faster for plain includes, .SHTML or .ASP

    &nbsp;<BR>I am preparing a site that will contain hundreds of static pages produced from a database. I will be using plain includes (header, footer, body), there&#039;ll beno dynamic content. <BR><BR>Is there any preference, especially performance-wise, Should I use .shtml or .asp extension for my files? (I&#039;ll be running on Windoze, Nt4 or win2K, still not sure).<BR><BR>Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969

    Default probably SHTML, no guarantee...

    The reason I say "probably" is because if a page is marked as ".asp", then the Web server has to do the include, produce a buffer in memory that contains the HTML with the included text, pass that buffer to ASP. Then ASP has to process it, looking for &#060;%..%&#062; (even if there aren&#039;t any!), and convert it to VBScript source code. (With no &#060;%...%&#062;, it converts the entire contents of the page into one big string and then does Response.Write of that string, but it still has to do that! (Unless it&#039;s got smart to short circuit that if no &#060;%...%&#062; found...which I tend to doubt.) Run the script (interpret that single statement and send the Response buffer *back* to the web server. FINALLY, the web server can send the page out to the browser.<BR><BR>Is it any wonder that ASP doesn&#039;t run like greased lightning?<BR><BR>Anyway, I have no idea what happens when you use .shtml, but it&#039;s pretty hard to believe it could be worse than *that*!<BR><BR>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts