«

Hans wrote:

> In an in-house ASP site (designed to support IE5.5+ and NN7+) we are using
> frames today and I know there are several issues by using frames but I
> cannot see a better alternative.

> In one frame I have a treeview. This treeview is not static (if the user
> clicks on a node it will expand/collapse). It is different for every user.
> It is pretty heavy to load. The main frame is loaded every time the user
> searches for data etc (which occur often) but the treeview frame is only
> reloaded when the user is actually working (clicking) on the treeview.

> If I remove the frames I would have to run the pretty heavy code for
> building up the non-static treeview for every page (which includes
> instantiating COM+ component and database access etc) and this will be
> much slower than it is today (at least when I tested). The users want to
> see the treeview all the time because they are familiar with that in the
> windows client (otherwise a link to a page that shows the treeview could
> be an alternative).

> This is an in-house site and issues with frames like bookmarking, indexing
> etc is not an issue in this case. I don't actually have any problems with
> the frames today and the small tests I have done with server side includes
> did not perform well.

> Is this just an unusual case where frames are the best choice or what
> alternatives do I have? I prompted for removing the treeview (and also a
> calendar frame) which are used rarely and add links that would open the
> page with the treeview/calendar but they insisted that they should be
> visible all the time.

> Regards
> /Hans

A simple two column division setup would work just as well.
Set up the page as a css file and call it when ever you need to change
pages.
You could also use "iframe" in the second column as if the page were a
regular frame set.
Since it's in-house, who else cares?

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:46 +0000, Jan Faerber wrote:

>
> I think the guys who propagate php stop a little bit to soon proudly showing
> their efforts.

Huh?

--
Jeffrey D. Silverman |
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

Drop "PANTS" to reply by email

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:44:14 +0100, Hans wrote:

> As you said I don't have any big problems today and the end users don't care
> if I use frames or not. They just want a system that works. I was just
> curious if I was to start over from scratch today would I still stick to
> frames?

The problems with frames relate more to the lack of control that most web
designers ultimately have of the end-user's environment. It sounds like
your end-users are in a relatively predictable environment. So if frames
are working for you, then use 'em.


--
Jeffrey D. Silverman |
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

Drop "PANTS" to reply by email

While sitting in a puddle jake scribbled in the mud:

>>
> Frames are your friends

Waaaaaa, copyright infringement.

--
Mr. D?
Never trust a cat to do a dog's job.

Hans wrote:

> In one frame I have a treeview. [...] It is pretty heavy to load.

As it is an intranet, and assuming all clients have Javascript available,
create a script called treemenu.js like this:

------------------------------------------------------------
function createmenu () {
var menu = "";
menu = menu + '<ul>';
menu = menu + '<li><a href="home">Home</a></li>';
// etc
menu = menu + '</ul>';
document.getElementById('menu').innerHTML = menu;
}
window.onload = createmenu;
------------------------------------------------------------

And then add this to every page:

------------------------------------------------------------
<script type="text/javascript" src="treemenu.js"></script>
<div id="menu"></div>
------------------------------------------------------------

And there you go -- your (javascript) menu gets downloaded only once
(saving bandwidth) and displays on every page.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Previously in alt.html, Duende <> said:

> Waaaaaa, copyright infringement.

Talk to Mir - she deals with people saying "meh"[1] all the time.

[1] TM Mir (SpaceGirl)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

While the city slept, Jeffrey Silverman () feverishly
typed...

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:46 +0000, Jan Faerber wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the guys who propagate php stop a little bit to soon proudly
>> showing their efforts.
>
> Huh?

You took the word right out of my mouth!

Cheers,
Nige

--
Nigel Moss
http://www.nigenet.org.uk
Mail address not valid. , take the DOG. out!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!

nice.guy.nige wrote:

> While the city slept, Jeffrey Silverman () feverishly
> typed...
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:46 +0000, Jan Faerber wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think the guys who propagate php stop a little bit to soon proudly
>>> showing their efforts.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> You took the word right out of my mouth!
>
> Cheers,
> Nige

I think Jan has a point.

There is hardly a single PHP page out there that implements the HTTP specs
as well as a plain HTML text file of the sort you normally find used in a
frameset. In fact most PHP pages don't conform to the HTTP specs at all.

Here's a challenge: can anyone show me a PHP page that ...

a) Knows how to respond correctly to all the HTTP/1.1 request types
(OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, POST, PUT, DELETE, TRACE and CONNECT) without just
sending back the same HTML content every time, and

b) Generates Content-Length and ETag headers that allow proxy servers and
clients to cache the page properly?

I think probably not.

But plain old vanilla HTML pages of the type you normally find in framesets
can do all of these things because nobody's bothered to meddle around with
them in PHP.

I'm not defending frames, by the way. I'm just pointing out that it takes
more than "simple" SSI techniques to solve their problems.

--
phil [dot] ronan @ virgin [dot] net
http://vzone.virgin.net/phil.ronan/

Previously in alt.html, Philip Ronan <> said:
>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:46:46 +0000, Jan Faerber wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the guys who propagate php stop a little bit to soon proudly
>>>> showing their efforts.
>
> I think Jan has a point.

You mean you understood it? That sentence didn't make much sense to me,
and apparently it didn't to Jeffrey or nige either.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Philip Ronan wrote:

> Here's a challenge: can anyone show me a PHP page that ...
>
> a) Knows how to respond correctly to all the HTTP/1.1 request types
> (OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, POST, PUT, DELETE, TRACE and CONNECT) without just
> sending back the same HTML content every time, and

Show me an HTML page that does!

PHP can cope, by default, with GET, POST and HEAD which are *by far* the
most common HTTP requests. The others are pretty much synonymous with
hacking attempts when it comes to a normal website.

> b) Generates Content-Length and ETag headers that allow proxy servers and
> clients to cache the page properly?

I've done a Perl script that generates proper Content-Length and ETag
headers (and Last-Modified). Close enough?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact