The real url is http://www.example.com/site.aspx?site=google.com
i want to the rewrite result more friendly.
like this: http://www.example.com/google.com
in C# code, i don't want to use third-party lib
only use RewritePath method or some code
I'm not sure I understand all of your requirements, but why couldn't you simply to a string.Replace(), or a regular expression if you could have other parameters in your query string as well.
There are some examples about how to rewrite, including this one.
You could also download the source code of URL Rewriter and see how the author does it.
Personally, I'm very satisfied with using URL Rewriter (binaries) in several of my projects.
Related
I want to translate a simple LINQ statement to a url that I can use on my webserver to produce my output manually. So I want to get something like this
http://localhost:6627/WebSite15/NorthwindDataService.svc/Products?$orderby=ProductName
when executing a statement like:
Products.Orderby(x => x.ProductName);
Is this possible? I mean, a simple data service does that out of the box, but I don't want to use this thing because I have special requirements.
I had a very similar problem and I found this EntitySorter and it worked wonderfully... You can see a similar implementation of it here also (look at the higher voted answer, not the marked answer).
It would let you do this kind of thing:
IEntitySorter<Person> sorter = EntitySorter<Person>
.OrderBy("Address.City")
.ThenByDescending("Id");
EDIT: On a side note, I had a perfectly justified reason to use it (and in fact was using it in a mocked service layer so I wasn't concerned about performance), but it was remarkable how much EntitySorter has to "go around your a$$ to get to your elbow" to get soft searches working... I think it was Microsoft's attempt at saying "We didn't make this easy on purpose"... That said, I thought EntitySorter was a very elegant solution considering what it's doing :)
I've realized it with a ExpressionVisitor now. Works like a charm.
I'm probably going to use the URL rewrite module for IIS 7 eventually and I have a fairly straight forward question that I really can't find the answer to.
If you have a base case of:
http://yoururl.com/page.aspx?ID=7
You can obviously have it rewritten to:
http://yoururl.com/page/7 or whatever you want.
My question is this: When using this module can you still use Request.Querystring["page"] on the rewritten querystring. How does the Request.URL stuff work. Does asp.net still provide the un-rewritten url or does it provide the rewritten one.
I would assume that your C#/asp.net code is completely unaffected by the url rewriting, as that's more or less the point, but I want to be crystal clear.
Secondary question: What is the best practice for how you should code a website when using the rewritten. Should you code links in the written style, or continue using querystrings?
When using this module can you still use Request.Querystring["page"] on the rewritten querystring.
Yes, you will be able to access the re-written QueryString in that way.
How does the Request.URL stuff work. Does asp.net still provide the un-rewritten url or does it provide the rewritten one.
Request.Url will be the re-written URL, but Request.RawUrl will be the original URL.
Should you code links in the written style, or continue using querystrings?
Yes, code your links in the way you want them to be seen by end users, and then in your code ensure you're aware of and document the changed format.
There is loads of information and tutorials on the IIS website here:
http://learn.iis.net/page.aspx/460/using-the-url-rewrite-module/
My situation is. I have a project planned to be built on ASP.NET MVC 2. And one of the major requirements is SEO optimization. A customer wants to use static-like URLs that end up with .html extension for this project that make URLs more SEO friendly. E.g. "mysite.com/about.html " or "mysite.com/items/getitem/5.html" etc.
I wonder is there any benefit from SEO perspective to use .html extension in dynamic URLs? Are Google and other search engines rank work better with such URLs?
I would use sitemaps instead, this enables you to have dynamic content (and to use MVC) but still be crawled completely.
See: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156184
and http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/10/the-importance-of-sitemaps.html
No, the base URL doesn't matter. If you're serving dynamic content in .aspx or .html, it's all the same. If you do serve ASP.NET content with .html because of requirements (as dumb as they may be), then I suggest finding an alternative extension (e.g. .htm) for all static content. You don't want your static HTML files getting processed unnecessarily.
As Femaref said, you can use sitemaps to help.
Also, make sure your URL doesn't change (including variables) if the content is the same. This shouldn't be a problem with MVC.
Edit: In your example:
mysite.com/items/getitem/5.html
I'm guessing what you originally wanted is:
mysite.com/items/getitem/5
No extension doesn't make a difference either. Since that's not a problem, I would also argue that an extension makes the URL less "clean" and also suggests that there is a file called 5.html in that path, which is obviously not true.
Search engines don't care at all at what your webpage extensions look like.
If anything all you're doing indicating a file type for the page served up.
Can the page be reached?
Is there content?
Are there links pointing to that page?
That's what a search engine is worried about. Anyone can create a custom solution using custom file extensions for a website and have it work just fine.
I am about to write a simple email manager for the site I'm working on (asp.net/c#); the site sends out various emails, like on account creation, news, some user actions, etc. So there will be some email templates with placeholders like [$FirstName] which will be replaced by actual values. Pretty standard stuff. I'm just wondering if someone can advise on existing code - again, i need something very simple, without many bells/whistles, and obviously with source code (and free)
Any ideas/comments will be highly appreciated!
Thanks,
Andrey
There are several threads on Stack Overflow about this already, but I ended up rolling my own solution from various suggestions there.
I used this FormatWith extension method to take care of simple templating, and then I made a basic Email base class to take care of common tasks, like pulling in an appropriate template and replacing all the requisite info, as well as providing a Send() method.
All the emails I need to send have their own subclass deriving from the base, and define things unique to them, such as TemplateText, BindingData, Recipients, and Subject. Having them each in their own class makes them very easy to unit test idependently of the rest of the app.
So that your app can work with these email classes without really caring which one it's using, it's also a good idea to implement an interface, with any shared methods (the only one I cared about was Send()), so then your app can instantiate whatever email class it wants and work with them in the same way. Maybe generics could be used, too, but this was what I came up with.
IEmail email = new MyEmailClass();
email.Send();
Edit: There are many more suggestions here: Can I set up HTML/Email Templates with ASP.NET?
I always do the following. Templates = text string with {#} placeholders. To use a template I load the string (from whatever store) and then call string.Format(template,param1,param2..)
Simple and works well. When you need something stronger you can move to a framework of some kind but string.format has always worked well for me.
note
Alison R's link takes this method to the next step using 3.5's anonymous types to great effect. If you are 3.5 I recommend using the FormatWith there (I will) otherwise this way works well.
Having just done this myself, there is some great information at: Sending Email Both in HTML and Plain Text. Best part is, you don't need anything other than .NET.
Essentially, you create an HTML page (AKA, your formatted e-mail) with the tags that you want to replace (in the case of this solution, tags will be in the format of: <%TAGNAME%>). You then utilize the information found at the above website to create a mail template with the tags filled with the appropriate data, and the injections will be done for you into your HTML template. Then, you just use the SMTP classes built into .NET and send the mail on its way. It's very simple and straightforward.
Let me know if you have any additional questions. Hope that helps!
If you are using ASP.NET, you already have a templating engine available to you. Simply create an ASP.NET page that will produce the results for you (using whatever controls, etc, etc) you want, as well as setting the ContentType of the response to the appropriate type (either text or HTML, depending on the email format)
Make sure that this url is not publically exposed.
Then, in your code, you would create an HttpWebRequest/HttpWebResponse or WebClient and then fetch the URL and get the contents. The ASP.NET engine will process the request and return your formatted results, which you can then email.
If you want something simpler, why not use a RegEx and match? Just make sure you have a fairly unique identifer for your fields (prefix and suffix, which you can guarantee will never be used, or, you can at least write an escape sequence for it) and you could easily use the Match method to do the replace.
The only "gotcha" to the RegEx approach is that if you have to do embedded templating, then that's going to require a little more work.
I am interested in the architecture of a CMS where i can pass a full URL instead of a query string.
I would like to make a site that could handle a request to any page... Say
'http://www.my-domain.com/directory/page.aspx'
and have the resulting response deliver a generic page/file.
I would like the request to be passed through an XML document where i could store page names and the corresponding file to render content...
My question specifically
Is this possible
Is it easy to do
Are there any Links people have on
hand they could share with me on the
how to's.
Any pro's or
cons you may have come across if you
have used this method.
Yes, it's possible, and reasonable easy. Most CMSes do it this way, but use a database instead of an XML file.
You should probably look into URL rewriting. The concept is to separate the URL structure from the actual filesystem representation.
For .NET: UrlRewriting.Net is a gem.
However, since there are hundreds of fantastic CMSes already out there like you describe, I'd suggest using one of them and saving yourself work. Provide more detailed requirements and I can suggest one.