Forum Moderators: open
Sharon
[edited by: pageoneresults at 1:56 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2004]
[edit reason] Removed URI Reference - Please Refer to TOS [/edit]
Dreamweaver uses templates, which you'll find to be quite a bit more versatile than shared borders. Templates let you create standard page designs and set multiple editable areas on the page. You aren't locked into fixed borders around a content box. You can also have as many templates on a site as you want, for different sections, different types of content, etc.
One suggestion - with the size your site is reaching, consider using SSI for standard content like navbars, headers, footers, etc. By making each of these areas a file, you can make changes very quickly - you need upload only the one small file. You won't have to regenerate and then upload a thousand pages just because you added one navigation link.
Good luck with the switch!
SSI are a great utility and are available in FP where they are simply called 'includes'.
You might benefit by breaking your site down into FP 'subwebs'. Do a little reading. It's makes it easier to update a site since you aren't working with 1300 pages all at once. I think EFV takes this approach.
Hope this helps.
When I was thinking to make the switch from FP to DW there was a DW extension to help convert sites over. I never got around to trying it (And I can't check if it's still available because I don't want to take the time to download an updated Flash player and can't view that part of DW's site without it. Arrgh!), but that might be worth taking a look at.
But let's address the basic problem first:
Often times when I go to make a link the program will crash.
The solution: More memory.
While server side includes and FP's shared borders and include page functions at first blush appear to accomplish the same thing, there is a basic difference in the way they work.
With SSI, included content is plopped into a page as it is served. Each discrete page can be mean and lean, often containing just a few lines of code. When a page is requested, the server assembles all the bits and serves them as a single page.
Frontpage uses a different approach. All included bits, whether shared borders, included pages or parameters are saved as a whole for each page. When a page is requested, the server doesn't have to assemble anything, just spit out the page.
What this means is that when you make a change to a border shared by 1,300 pages Frontpage then has to update and save each page. If your local machine is memory challenged it can choke up.
You won't have to regenerate and then upload a thousand pages just because you added one navigation link.
Yeah, when publishling FP will chug through both the local and remote copies of the site to find which pages have changed, and for a large site that can take a few minutes. However, in the case of a change to a single included page it will only upload that one, then refresh each of the affected pages on the server. It will not upload all 1,300 of them. When pressed for time I occasionally FTP the single included page, then open the remote copy in FP and 'update hyperlinks.' A 2,000 page site with a halfway fast server takes about a minute or so to update.
So, just a couple of more things to think about while making your decision, Doglover. Good luck whichever way you decide.
