Moin,
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 18:07, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:26:43AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Can someone tell me how important this last reason is? How bad is it to transclude frequently used templates? Could it be improved? Is this going to go away? Permanently substing a large number of templates to solve a short-term performance problem is, well, bad.
That's roughly the same argument adduced to explain why WAP sucks, and it's just as cogent here as it is there.
Never permanently "fix" performance problems by translating them out of existence; it will bite you when the machines catch up.
So, we're still yet to hear how bad it is to have, say, 5 transcluded templates on each of, say, 50,000 not particularly popular pages. Compared to substituting them all.
Also, is it true to say that the transclusion only takes place the next time the page is modified and resaved?
Yes. The nice things about templates is that you can do tricks like editing this page:
http://bloodgate.com/wiki/index.php?title=Template:Slides
And all the presentation slides will be updated automatically.
So, I probably missed half of the argumentation, but why is the performance problem more important than the saved human work?
best wishes,
tels