Due to:

1. Compatability with NN
2. Corruption of extensions
3. Who knows what else

Or does it not make a difference, the include component is safe and solid?

Thanks in advance

------------------
www.Signingshotline.com lists EVERY upcoming athlete autograph appearance in the US and Canada

quote:

---

Originally posted by hzarabet:
Is there any benefit to using asp instead of the FP include page component?

---

Hi

Mmmm....not sure I understand the question....What is it you are trying to do?

ASP (Active Server Pages) is a server side scripting language that can be used to built highly sophisticated apps while the FP include component is just a FP component to insert the contents of one page or file into the body of another pages(s).

Updating the included page automatically shows the new content on the main page(s) where the FP include component was inserted.

I know of no NN issues with either ASP or the FP include component....

Rian

------------------
Webmaster
SR Web Creators
http://www.srwebcreators.com
_ _________________ _
"Press ENTER once to quit or twice to save changes..."
_ ________________ _

<!-- #include file="file.asp" -->

The FP include is just the Fp version of that code. Functionally there wont be too much difference. I think the FP version has to be manually modified to use asp files from memory.

------------------
Spooky
"I am Spooky of Borg. Prepare to be assimilated, babycakes!"
Subscribe to OutFront News
Database / DRW Q & A
The Spooky Login!

The point of my question was really due to the corruptibily of the FP extensions. I have found that FP custom confirm page results get screwy pretty easily from corrupted extensions. As I want to use this include for my navigation bar, I do not want to be in a position where my Nav BAr will be corrupted as well.

So I guess another way to phrase it is, does the include component work if the FP extensions get corrupted?

------------------
www.Signingshotline.com lists EVERY upcoming athlete autograph appearance in the US and Canada

An alternative, which has the same effect exactly, is to use Server Side Includes, which are basically the same as FP includes (Though they can do a lot more) but are completely independant of FP. Instead of the usual FP include code that appears in the HTML view, eg:
<!--webbot bot="Include" U-Include="navigation.htm" TAG="BODY" -->

you would use the SSI include code as below:
<!--#include virtual="navigation.htm"-->

You will find a good overview of SSI here: http://bignosebird.com/ssi.shtml

One comment, I am constantly amazed at how often people post here about problems with extensions. I have never, ever, had a single problem with extensions on any of the more than 20 sites I have published that use them. I am amazed at your forebearance on this issue. In case you are interested I host the sites at www.digihost.com

------------------
Katherine

InKK Design
LinKKs - Kilkenny's Online Magazine

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"Dogs have owners, cats have staff!"

[This message has been edited by abbeyvet (edited 03-26-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by abbeyvet:

One comment, I am constantly amazed at how often people post here about problems with extensions. I have never, ever, had a single problem with extensions on any of the more than 20 sites I have published that use them. I am amazed at your forebearance on this issue. In case you are interested I host the sites at www.digihost.com

---

Ditto to everything Katherine just said! (The FP includes definitely works without extensions on the server.)

It's amazing how many hosting companies will blame their inability to do basic server configuration on the FP extensions!

I too have NEVER had corrupted extensions even with some pretty bad hosting companies in the past....

Rian

------------------
Webmaster
SR Web Creators
http://www.srwebcreators.com
_ _________________ _
"Press ENTER once to quit or twice to save changes..."
_ ________________ _