| Author |
 Topic  |
|
work mule
Senior Member
USA
1358 Posts |
 Posted - 16 October 2002 : 04:36:29
|
Getting back to the topic and having a productive discussion of possible alternatives... 
Thinking aloud, what if an "external" javascript file was used to store the data and build the drop down list? If caching is effective, then the browser should retrieve the linked .js file (custom generated specifically for that user), cache it and refer to the cached version on subsequent pages. Every site could benefit from something like this.
The benefits:
- reduced bandwidth (cached version used on subsequent pages)
- costs of rendering/processing is transferred to the client
- frees up IIS resources by moving this out of session variable
It's a given that not every browser will have javascript enabled and linked js files are 1.1 (I think it was 1.1) and above. In the current implementation, the drop down wouldn't work if javascript was disabled since it relies upon an onChange event. Since it's not critical to the display of the forum, if it didn't appear for a few people who have old browsers or javascript disabled, I would think the benefits would be worth it.
|
 |
|
|
Davio
Development Team Member
Jamaica
12217 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 04:38:00
|
It would be good if we could get some stats on using session variables versus using an althernative method. Huwr says the memory usage and resources have gone down since 3.4, for the Snitz Forums.
Do you have any way of testing your alternative methods WorkMule and see how they match against using the session variables?
Maybe you could come up with some code for your althernative methods and then others can test it also. |
Support Snitz Forums
|
|
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 04:49:40
|
quote:
It would be good if we could get some stats on using session variables versus using an althernative method. Huwr says the memory usage and resources have gone down since 3.4, for the Snitz Forums.
I think what Huw was mentioning is about the overall picture. I don't know if one can just measure session resources.
|
 Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
e3stone
Average Member
USA
885 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 06:31:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by HuwR
quote:
I was being quite sarcastic. I realize that you never claimed that, but it tends to come across that way in some of your replies to people that say there's something wrong with forum code or asking why Snitz did this or that, or proposing a
Maybe thats because he knows the code better than you do.
Yeah, same type of opinion that Professor Challis A. Hall Jr. had on Fred Smith's Economics term paper.
I hate to be a pain in the rear and not talk about the topic at hand, but that original response still bugs me. Not just that response, but all similar responses throughout this board. It just bugs me that this occurs on a site developed with GPL code. Yeah, so someone might know the code better than me (Easily understandable since that person helped develop a good portion of the code, added to the fact that it isn't clearly commented - which might help a tad) but that still doesn't justify their responses. This superior attitude doesn't hold well with some people and I actually know of a few [people] (very good programmers, at that) who have stopped coming here because of it. I'm sure some are reading this and thinking, "wow, Eric complains a lot." Yes...right now, I am. I'm venting my frustration over the lack of respect floating around here. Being an Admin or a Snitz Developer doesn't automatically make you a better programmer or fill that matter in between your ears with all the right answers. I don't mean to generalize, and I appologize to those Admins and/or Developers who aren't in the group to which I'm referring. Snitz might lose some very good programmers because of these general attitudes and condescending replies. I don't want a few bad apples to ruin the batch, though. I stick around here because of people like Dave aka Work Mule, Davio, GauravBhabu, bozden, ruirib, to mention a few, and I wouldn't leave because these people are still here. However, if all the replies in the forum were like the first of this topic, I'd soon find somewhere else to get/give advice.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest....
I must agree with Work Mule in that the jumpbox CODE should not be stored in a session variable. I probably would have mentioned something about it before if I had known it existed. I checked the session variables on the default page, but none in the forum page because I assumed that there wouldn't be any there.
With this, I don't see why we can't use a intJumpBoxCodeLoaded Session Variable, store the code in a temp table, then check the Session Variable. If it's loaded, fine, query the db and get the code. If not, then do the same thing we already do in inc_jump_to.asp, then load the db table with the code, and set the Session Variable to 1. Well, I know my opinion will be considered, as the opinions of all are.
How about we let the individual Admin decide? Put a blank table in the db. Put an option in the Admin area to use a Session Variable to store the code or the db to store the code. Better yet, if we're going to store this sort of thing in a Session Variable, why not give the user the choice of turning the jumpbox on/off. Seems easy enough. |
<-- Eric --> |
Edited by - e3stone on 16 October 2002 06:33:43 |
|
|
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 06:49:32
|
What does "GPL code" have to do with my response? Just because this is "GPL Code" doesn't mean I should word my responses any differently.
You go and work on something for almost a year, then release it only to have people post about how this should have been done this way, or this should not have been done that way, etc. See how you feel about it.
I can go along with the option to have the Jumpbox turned on or off, that's fine with me.
I'll be refraining from posting on subjects such as this one, from now on.
To anyone that I may have offended, I apologize. |
|
|
|
ajhvdb
Junior Member
Netherlands
392 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 06:59:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by work mule II
Thinking aloud, what if an "external" javascript file was used to store the data and build the drop down list?
But then you need to give the IUSR_user read/write permissions on a special javascript folder?
Has anyone ask there members if they use the jumpbox. We removed it in a earlier version and never had any questions. |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 08:16:14
|
quote:
However, if all the replies in the forum were like the first of this topic, I'd soon find somewhere else to get/give advice.
I can post this 'cause I'm sure I'm already in your "other group" of regulars here :)
Lemme see, keep Eric, or keep Richard?
OK, I vote keep Richard!!!!! I like to get real answers to questions, and I think Richard's track record is second to none here.
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20595 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 08:23:22
|
quote:
OK, I vote keep Richard!!!!!
Well, obviously you would 
maybe when e3stone has answered several thousand such questions he will begin to understand our attitude. |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20595 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 08:37:42
|
You could massively reduce the session overhead by storing it differently, there is no need to store all the html, since that would be easy to construct, all that needs storing is
forum.asp?FORUM_ID=96,DEV Bug Reports (Closed)
or even just
F=96,DEV Bug Reports (Closed)
and the F or C replaced with their respective type and ID |
|
|
|
Nikkol
Forum Moderator
USA
6907 Posts |
|
|
mios
Junior Member
United Kingdom
101 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 09:59:13
|
Sessions use over 100kb of memory just by being enabled! You don't even need to have to store anything in them.
The worst thing about sessions are the fact they rely on cookies, so if a visitor on your site has cookies disabled, they get a new session for every page they visit.
So a visitor visiting 10 pages, creates 10 Sessions = 1MB
or even worse Google spiders your site, in a 20min periond view 100 pages.........
|
|
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 10:43:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by mios
Sessions use over 100kb of memory just by being enabled! You don't even need to have to store anything in them.
The worst thing about sessions are the fact they rely on cookies, so if a visitor on your site has cookies disabled, they get a new session for every page they visit.
So a visitor visiting 10 pages, creates 10 Sessions = 1MB
or even worse Google spiders your site, in a 20min periond view 100 pages.........
Where did you get this info? Any links?
|
Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 11:05:22
|
This MS article, which is one I refer to frequently, says the session overhead is 10kb, not 100kb. 10kb seems a much more reasonable number.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/en-us/dnasp/html/ASPtips.asp
And if I had a database-driven asp site that relied on sessions to work, I can't imagine having very many visitors with cookies disabled that keep coming back and firing off new sessions. What could they do on the site? If the site doesn't require sessions at all, just turn them off in the web server.
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
Edited by - Doug G on 16 October 2002 11:08:23 |
|
|
|
ajhvdb
Junior Member
Netherlands
392 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 11:06:47
|
Could you give me a link for reading, I'm still interested. |
Edited by - ajhvdb on 16 October 2002 11:11:44 |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 16 October 2002 : 11:09:03
|
There ya go, I clicked a bit prematurely :)
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
