well, now i know, phpbuilder don't ob_start()

[jimson]

......
Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output started at /www/lc/phpbuild/php/prepend.php:27) in /www/lc/phpbuild/www/board/admin/functions.php on line 1573

[Mordecai]

Yeah, just noticed that... wonder what's causing that?
All of our avatars are screwed up, too.

[jimson]

i think the moderators already notice this... hopefully they have some spare time to correct it...


if jstarkey fall sleep, somebody please help us to PING this guy... lol :)

[stolzyboy]

well, now i know, phpbuilder don't ob_start()

that's probably a good thing, ob_start() isn't the best thing to use
in a large scale site like this

its better to remove all output rather than output buffering

but obviously something is wrong

[tuf-web.co.uk]

fixed now :D

[jimson]

i think they do this

error_reporting = E_ALL

in this production and large complex site... :)

[jimson]

tuf-web.co.uk

u are a fast $postNum++ learner... :D

[laserlight]

u are a fast $postNum++ learner...

me too :)

well, I think one should use output buffering like using GOTOs.
Use it if needed, but avoid it.

[tuf-web.co.uk]

u are a fast $postNum++ learner... :D

errr, is that good?!

[jimson]

errr, is that good?!

well, is some way, otherwise, this would be a $postNum++ thread... :) lol

[tuf-web.co.uk]

but what does it all mean?

[jimson]

i don't know ...

[tuf-web.co.uk]

me very confused :(

[stolzyboy]

you should be.......

anyway what jimson is saying is that he and apparently me only
post to get our post number up

on the other hand i do post and help large amounts of people

that is all he is saying

[tuf-web.co.uk]

ahh i c now, just some more jargon language
oh well now i know incase i need to know later

and on the other hand, i dont not $Postnum++ :P

well yet anyways ;)

[Cogen]

stolzyboy / laserlight ... I'm just curious, why don't you recommend output buffering? I didn't really notice any major drawbacks to using it on php.net. I have recently started using output buffering on all sites that I create. Is that a bad idea?

[stolzyboy]

this was from one of my previous posts

the only difference is that it forces to internally buffer the output instead of outputting the buffer, you will see no difference in speed or server overhead with a simple header redirect, or setting a cookie, and i have yet to see any difference when doing anything with that option regardless of what it is, glad i could help

however that was til a site i had grew to number and number of posts/request that sort of thing

it is a company intranet of 1000 peeps involving calendars/chats/message boards all that sort of thing and i relied on ob_start() until it grew enormously and they were using it

they called and asked why it was so slow, since its right on their network

i said hmmmmm......let me think

so i removed all ob_start()'s, then removed all output before header calls and voila it works like lightning

now keep in mind that this is hundreds of requests per minute and if you don't get into something that large you shouldn't have
a problem with ob_start()

[Cogen]

okay .. thanks stolzyboy, I'll keep that in mind. Most of the sites I create are not that busy. :)

[jimson]

try saving a site page... if > 30 kb, may consider to turn off the ob_start()... imho

[stolzyboy]

30K is squat and is irregardless compared to user activity, and you can have 300K if it isn't doing too much it won't matter

and you can have 30K doing a whole load of crab and have it kill your page

i wouldn't get hooked on a size as how you "think" your page will perform

[jimson]

IMHO... if
a.php = 30 kb
b.php = 300 kb

structure of a.php
=============

+----------------+
| (a) 10 kb |
|----------------+
| (b) | (c) |
| 8 | 22 |
| kb | kb |
| | |
+----------------+


structure of b.php
=============

+----------------+
| (a) 80 kb |
|----------------+
| (b) | (c) |
| 40 | 180 |
| kb | kb |
| | |
+----------------+


where a = header area
b = menu area
c = content area

if we ob_start() and don't flush it, user will see nothing untill the 300 kb is downloaded for the b.php and 30kb is downloaded for a.php
while... our main targets still the 56k peeps... if they can't see anything in the first few seconds... they will move from our sites.
they thought we are down... :(

so, IMHO.. size really matters.

[stolzyboy]

that may be in your 56K group, but i need not worry about the connection speeds, i am working with corporate intranets and until you get tons of traffic on large complex pages, you won't see a significant performance hit with ob_start()

however when you are doing very complex things (not just simple inserts updates deletes) but complex interactive stuff in an intranet setting for a 1000 employee setting (handling just about all aspects of their business) ob_start() matters a whole hell of a lot

and trust me size really doesn't matter *just ask the ladies* when using ob_start(), it is what you are doing, been there, done that

and regardless if you are using ob_start() or not, of course a 30K page will load faster than a 300K page

but in the end it is the user base you need to worry about for your particular project

my company focuses mainly on corporate intranets than simple database driven websites for public users

and that is IMHO

[jimson]

i am not pro ob_start()...
but for a 300kb with ob_start and you flush it in section(a), (b) and (c). IMHO, it will be the same like u are not using ob_start().

and regardless if you are using ob_start() or not, of course a 30K page will load faster than a 300K page
for a 30K page, if u ob_start() and ob_end_flush() in the end, IMHO, it will be the same like u r not using ob_start.
for a 300K page, if u ob_start() and ob_end_flush() in the end,
IMHO, user will need to download the 300K before they can see things.

my point is, people ob_start(), but they don't ob_flush().. they only ob_end_flush()... so the site is slow.