Save bandwidth using javascript files?

themaxx

Hello. I have a question about saving bandwidth that maybe someone will know about:

Can/should you use javascript files to save bandwidth?

My example:

I have 50 seperate php pages that have a left-side navigation.
The left-side navigation is the same for every page.
I don't want to use frames to save the bandwidth.
I don't want to have to get the code from my server on every seperate page request since it will be the same for every page.

How about this?:

Make a javascript file called leftnav.js and have it write the left side navigation, and then call that javascript file on all the php pages. This way, instead of having to send the code to be echoed for each new page from the server, it would get the javascript file from the visitor's cache, and then display the navigation.

If the left side navigation was 50kb, then it would download the 50kb javascript page once, and then load it from the cache, saving 50kb of bandwidth for each new page they visit that has to load that left-side navigation. Maybe even make two files called layouttop.js and layoutbottom.js that include the whole page except for the unique content to that page?

Is this a reasonable idea? I'm not sure, but it sounds good. I have not seen anything like this documented on the internet yet.

Anyone have some ideas? Or actually know if this is a good idea?

Thanks so much any help, and hope this may help others as well.

- The Maxx

**EDITED BELOW BECAUSE OF STUPIDITY**

Okay, I thought about it, and the javascript thing might work good for html pages instead of using frames or iframes (don't know what else would do it for html files), but for php files, how about using the include() function, or better yet, the require() function? Have the page like this?:

<?php

CONNECTION STUFF HERE

require ('left-nav-etc.txt');

require ('top-nav-etc.txt');

echo "PUT THE UNIQUE PAGE CONTENT HERE";

require ('bottom-nav-etc.txt');

</body></html>

How does this sound.....? Thanks again! 🙂

P.S. - sorry to make it so much reading 🙁

- The Maxx

psy

even easier is just making a huge html class and having something like

$html->pagehead();
blah
$html->pagefooter();

then you only require the class php 🙂 and its only 1 file instead of a few includes

the_Igel

Still, includes and requires in php have nothing to do with saving bandwidth 😉

As for .js 'includes' (some people call it 'client-side SSI') - there's nothing bad in it, and it really saves bandwidth. Just keep in mind, that .js files can't contain plain html - there must be smth like
document.write('ALL_MY_HTML_HERE');

themaxx

🙁 I don't really understand how to use a html/php class to load the header/footer for a page...

😕 I thought the javascript file idea to be good, until I figured out that you can't break up the line that you want to print, like you said. That would make it way hard.

😉 Then I realized that I could use the require() function on my php pages. Now all my pages will be in php; every one!

:mad: But like you said, I figured that if you use the require() function to require a .php file, that .php file you require will still have to be processed by the server each time before being displayed to the visitor, right? Then you won't save the bandwidth, right? Because it doesn't come from the cache, right?

:p Right! Right! Right! :p

🆒 So I have this cool idea that seems like it will save most of the bandwidth it takes to load the page...like this:

<html><head>
<title>INSERTCONTENTHERE</title>

<?php
require ('navleft.txt');
require ('navhitbox.php');
require ('navtop.txt');
?>

INSERTCONTENTHERE

<?php
require ('navbottom.txt');
?>

</body></html>

:eek: This way most the code will be in the .txt files, which I think would normally be cached on the visitor's computer, and only have to have them download one small .php file and the actual .php file of the page with the UNIQUECONTENTINSERTION.

:rolleyes: Does this seem brilliant or what? Why didn't I think of this months ago and save myself hundreds of dollars in bandwidth while also increasing pageload times for my visitors and making it easier to update my page's navigation?

😃 Any comments? Thanks for any help, and hope this can help you too. If this is a bad idea for any reason, please let me know, thanks.

- The Maxx

the_Igel

nope.
it won't save anything, just because the php is proccessed on the server. Nothing will be cached, because server proccesses the requires and then passes the result, i.e. the whole page, to the browser.

You can't execute php in browser, even require() 🙂

TodManPlaa

Here's my two quid,

In the scheme of things a chunk of code - be it HTML, XHTML,XML,PHP,ASP,or some other dog's breakfast isn't (or rather shouldn't) be of concern bandwidth wise.

If you have a left navigation bar that weighs 50K in code (excluding images as I don't think that is what we're discussing here) then I'd say you need to ask yourself the question - "Have I coded that the best possible way?"

Nine times out of ten, bandwidth is wasted sending crappy rollovers and all kinds of other graphical nonsense - not sending chunks of HTML code.

Code intelligently - if you have a nav bar that contains 32 differen t layered tables - or one that weighs 50K, believe me there's a better way to do it.

themaxx

Oh no! What if I were to make all my pages as html files? I could use iframes to insert the text/html navigation files (the first time loaded from the server, and then afterwards, from the visitor's cache). Then only the php content files would be loaded into an iframe from the server everytime. But the thing is, iframes are hard to use, because you have to have the exact size that the iframe should be, unlike include() of require() in php. Is there a way to make iframes automatically size themselves to fit the content inside? Or is there another html command like include or require besides iframes? Should I just resort to using frames for the whole site? I don't like frames..... I don't know, my whole idea is ruined!!! Please advise, thanks so much.

the_Igel

it's not such a big problem about html. Still you can have all images and jscripts cached, pure html wouldn't make much trouble. Just keep it clear, and no reasonable page will need more than, say, ten kB.

themaxx

Well... I have just decided to use the php function require(). It won't save me bandwidth because the required files are processed on the server side and then sent to the client side, but it will make it lots easier to update the navigation for all my pages! 🙂

I was thinking including the navigations with javascript, which should be cached on the user's computer (I think as long as the javascripts are not echoed or printed by php), but the code would have to be all on one line, or else formatted in a really hard way to read and edit. 🙁

Then I thought about using iframes. It would be easy to read and edit, and the files would be cached on the user's computer. But that would seem akward to make a layout using mostly iframes. 🙁

Frames???.......... No, just no (too complicated) 🙁

And plus I read that javascript files, frames, and iframes are not indexed by most search engines accurately or not at all. 🙁

This made me decide to just forget about it and go with the easy way, using the php require() function. It's just too bad there is no include or require command for html besides frames, iframes, or javascript. Thanks a lot for all your input! 🆒

Mega

just use gzip compression, duno where u can download it, but use it if u r that fussed about bandwidth.

and server processing and bandwidth aren't related.

eg:

$i = 0;
$hi = 'boo';
while( $i < 40000 ){
$result = mysql_query("select * from table");
$$hi = $hi . $i;
while( $row=mysql_fetch_array( $result ) ){
$$hi .= $row[0] . $row[1];
$yo = date("F m wijhsihsiaoijai", 123844848);
}
$i++;
}

echo '.';

a bit of server resources to say the least.

hardly any bandwidth 🙂

themaxx

Mega, I'm not really sure what you mean about gzip compression and your code.

What does the PHP code you supplied mean or do?

And what is gzip compression? Does it process the page, zip it, and then send it to the browser, and have the browser unzip it? That would be nice!

Hope you can explain. Thanks!