 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / ASP.NET / General / September 2007URL Rewriting
I understand that with URL rewriting we can have a request come in for, say Page1.aspx, and rewrite it so that PageA.aspx gets served up to the user. My question (assuming the above is correct): What does the user see in the browser after URL Rewriting? In the above case, when PageA is rendered to the browser, will the address bar show "PageA.aspx" or would it show "Page1.aspx" - the originally requested URL? Thanks. It depends on what you are doing. If you are using a server.Transfer, they see the original URL. In general, with an HttpHandler, it will also show the original URL. This is normal and generally expected. If you want the new URL to show, you can program it that way via a client side redirect, which can happen with Response.Redirect or using certain other mechanisms that send out a redirect (generally a 300 level response).  SignatureGregory A. Beamer MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA ************************************************* | Think outside the box! ************************************************* >I understand that with URL rewriting we can have a request come in for, say >Page1.aspx, and rewrite it so that PageA.aspx gets served up to the user. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks. I'm not looking for the user to see/know the real page being rendered. What I'm looking for is a level of indirection where the user never knows what the "real" page is. Specifically, I'd like for the users to request a particular page, say Page1.aspx, then on the server render PageA.aspx down to the browser. All the while the user thinks they are looking at Page1.aspx - which actually doesn't exist on the server - never has, never will. Apparently the default URL Rewriting behavior provided by HttpApplication.Context.RewritePath yields this effect automatically. Is this correct? Thanks. > It depends on what you are doing. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Thanks. That's correct Frankie, Context.Rewritepath is the right class for that kind of stuff. For more info and examples check this: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/02/26/tip-trick-url-rewriting-with-a sp-net.aspx hth Andreas SignatureMore on ASP.NET and Silverlight on my blog: http://www.andreas-kraus.net/blog > I'm not looking for the user to see/know the real page being rendered. What > I'm looking for is a level of indirection where the user never knows what [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >> > >> Thanks. >That's correct Frankie, Context.Rewritepath is the right class for that >kind of stuff. However, you don't need to use HttpModules to do this. I have absolutely no idea why people make URL rewriting so complex. Almost every article I have seen insists on using HttpModules, when they just aren't needed. Suppose you want the user to enter (or click) an URL like http://www.domain.com/Toaster.aspx, and have the server send back the contents as if they had typed (or clicked) http://www.domain.com/products.aspx?product=Toaster then all you need to do is add the following to your Global.asax file... void Application_BeginRequest(Object sender , EventArgs e) { if (Request.Path == "Toaster.aspx") { Context.RewritePath("/products.aspx?product=Toaster"); } } Note that this is air code, but it is basically right. You don't need an HttpModule, just a bit of code in Global.asax HTH SignatureAlan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) The main reason for HttpModules is efficiency. You can do it much simpler, which is fine for many sites. But, if you are doing this long term on a site that needs to scale, you are better to intercept the call as high up the stack as possible. SignatureGregory A. Beamer MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA ************************************************* | Think outside the box! ************************************************* >>That's correct Frankie, Context.Rewritepath is the right class for that >>kind of stuff. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > HTH >The main reason for HttpModules is efficiency. You can do it much simpler, >which is fine for many sites. But, if you are doing this long term on a site >that needs to scale, you are better to intercept the call as high up the >stack as possible. Is that why people use HttpModules? I never found a decent reason. So what are the implication for doing it in Application_BeginRequest? You imply it's less efficient, but why? Thanks for the reply. Shame this point isn't made clearer. Everyone just states that you have to use an HttpModule, without any explanation. At least with your added info, an informed decision can be made. Ta ra SignatureAlan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) My motivation has more to do with driving the mapping logic from a database, rather than hard-coding it into Global.asax (as per your earlier example). Hard-coding is easier if the pages (or at least mappings) rarely change. But in my case, I have admin pages whereby my customers can add entirely new pages to their Web sites. Those pages never physically exist on disk, and are instead defined in a database. When page requests come in, I have logic that retrieves the "page" content from the database and injects it into a placeholder within a "template aspx" page. That's an oversimplification but gets you the basic idea. Anyway, my desire to do URL Rewriting comes from the fact that users now request (perhaps via link on a page) these db-driven "pages" with a long URL that looks something like "TheirSite.com/SomeFolder/TheTemplate.aspx?pageID=398. The programming logic then looks to the db and retrieves the page content for 398. Anyway I want more "user friendly" URLs. So in the future the users will be able to request, for example, "TheirSite.com/MeaningfulPageName.aspx". The URL Rewriting logic will then map that friendly name to the real URL: "TheirSite.com/SomeFolder/TheTemplate.aspx?pageID=398" URL. -Frankie >>The main reason for HttpModules is efficiency. You can do it much simpler, >>which is fine for many sites. But, if you are doing this long term on a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ta ra >My motivation has more to do with driving the mapping logic from a database, >rather than hard-coding it into Global.asax (as per your earlier example). <snip> My example was deliberately simple to illustrate the point. In reality, this would be done from a database. Nothing that you have suggested couldn't be done just as easily in global.asax, so I don't see that your motivation affects the issue. Ta ra SignatureAlan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) HttpHandlers can be really nice for this: http://www.ftponline.com/vsm/2002_02/magazine/columns/qa/ SignatureGregory A. Beamer MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA ************************************************* | Think outside the box! ************************************************* > I'm not looking for the user to see/know the real page being rendered. > What I'm looking for is a level of indirection where the user never knows [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>> >>> Thanks. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.