SSI not relevant?
Tuesday December 9, 2008
SmileyCat asked the question Are Server Side Includes Still a Relevant Technique for Managing Large Web Sites? I would argue that yes they are. SSI has been around a long time, and yes, there are drawbacks to it, but the longevity of the technology is one of the positives. It's been around a long time so IT workers know how to handle it. It doesn't have a lot of surprises. And it's not terribly complicated. The other options, like JavaScript, PHP, or CGI add a lot more complexity to a tool that doesn't need to be complex. In fact, on one site I designed, we rewrote the whole site in ASP, including the includes. Then about a month later, we converted all the includes back to SSI - it was just more effective. Client-side JavaScript is a bad choice unless you don't care whether the include is used or not - as not everyone has JavaScript turned on. PHP, JSP, ASP, and CGI all require programming knowledge. And using tools like Dreamweaver templates can be difficult, especially if you switch to a new editor.
Comments
I server side is mainly about programming. So I think it’s not an obstacle the need to learn a programming/scripting language - it’s a necessity. Those who don’t like it only limit themselves.
JavaScript is not a serious solution - because it’s client side and it’s not necessarily enabled on all browsers - it works fine in tweaking the interface instead. (or as an AJAX interface layer that depends entirely on the server-side)
I disagree with the complexity statement - enabling SSI needs server-side configuration, so that makes it just as complex as PHP, JSP, ASP etc - to set up.
SSI, in my opinion is just a cheap ( and stripped down ) substitute for a small part of something greater - what the real server-side languages are (do you see server-side applications written in SSI?). (and that’s what makes it less complex to use - it’s limitations)
Alexander: if you include turning on the service, then nearly every server-side application will be very difficult. But most people who use any of those systems (PHP, ASP, or SSI) would just write to their hosting provider or IT department and ask it to be turned on. Most Web designers/developers don’t even have the access to turn on these tools, let alone the knowledge.
So PHP (ASP, JSP, etc) are all more complicated than SSI, because they are intended to do more. SSI is just a system to write include files. So it’s less complex - there’s less to learn.
Note, my post is not intended to be a debate about whether PHP (or any other server side programming language) is better than SSI, but rather if they are better for include files. Sure, to be competitive, you want to learn PHP. But do you really need to use or learn PHP just to have include files on your site? I would say no. SSI is perfectly fine.
I agree. SSI has it’s purpose, and what to be used for… but now that I know PHP, I wouldn’t use SSI, unless it’s the only choice ( just my personal preference )
My point was that I don’t consider SSI to be a “language”… maybe an add-on
I am not using SSI anymore - I use PHP includes.. I was surprised to see SSI as a service checkbox on your hosting review form.
SSI’s are a GREAT time saver in both development and ongoing maintenance of sites because an SSI can be updated and [once uploaded] will change all of your site files it’s included in. DW Templates conversely require re uploading all the pages they’re included in - very tedious. You’d be crazy NOT to utilize SSIs. Furthermore there’s very little to configure on a server if you know that ASP, PHP and SHTML files already work with SSIs by default. I even set my .htm files to work with SSIs but that can become an issue if the site is later moved to a server where the admin only supports SSI in certain file types.