| Author |
Message |
floppy
Newbie


Joined: Sep 11, 2006
Posts: 92
|
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:48 am |
|
Man I can tell you worked on this a bit. Its a huge improvement over the last version of G-Tap! In the sense of implementation.
Now I get to spend the next couple of weeks trying to get it all working  |
| |
|
|
 |
montego
Site Admin/Owner


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 1139
|
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:15 am |
|
Well, I would hope that it would only take you a few minutes...  |
_________________ “To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you’re overdoing it.”
-- Josh Jenkins |
|
|
 |
floppy
Newbie


Joined: Sep 11, 2006
Posts: 92
|
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:24 am |
|
Well, all seems to be working great!!! I am very still very new to this idea. I didn't see index.php in the .htaccess provided so I wrote it in myself.
| Code: |
#Index.php
RewriteRule ^index.html index.php [L] |
I think that would be the proper way. I am assuming [L] stands for long? |
| |
|
|
 |
montego
Site Admin/Owner


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 1139
|
Posted:
Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:04 pm |
|
Well, index.php is already "short", so it really does not need to be included. This gets indexed just fine, but if you prefer to see it as index.html, by all means...
Actually, "L" tells Apache to stop searching after getting a "hit" on the rewrite rule. It helps to speed up the rewrite process. |
_________________ “To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you’re overdoing it.”
-- Josh Jenkins |
|
|
 |
NoFantasy
Newbie


Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 10
|
Posted:
Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:57 am |
|
I have to agree, nice job on this one! It even feels a bit faster. |
| |
|
|
 |
Guardian
Site Admin


Joined: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 340
|
Posted:
Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:17 pm |
|
For what it might be worth I did run a side by side comparison on a site using GT and ShortUrl's.
I selected 20 links on my site and noted the load time with ShortUrl's - each link was visited once, then refreshed (so I had 2 readings) and closed the browser session before trying the next link etc.
I removed ShortUrl and installed GT and repeated with the same links.
Yes there is definitely an improvement on speed between the two. I dont want to get into a flame war as they are both good scripts but I'll just say that ShortUrl's has a significant advantage.
And if you want to be really really paranoid about server load and page load times from my own findings I can tell you it takes on average 1 tenth of a second longer to load a page with ShortUrl's than without - that is some acheivement given the benfit!!!!!!!!!
Caveat:
These are my own findings based on my own site and are my personal opinion. |
| |
|
|
 |
montego
Site Admin/Owner


Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 1139
|
Posted:
Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:42 pm |
|
Well, I cannot make any claims over the speed aspect. Could be so many variables. ShortLinks is based heavily on GT-NExtGEn and I can only think of maybe two things that I changed which could have impacted performance in a positive manner.
Glad to see everyone is having success with it. And thanks once again to everyone for the kind words (and encouragement).
Regards,
montego |
_________________ “To err is human, but when the eraser wears out ahead of the pencil, you’re overdoing it.”
-- Josh Jenkins |
|
|
 |
|
|