Sorry, I've missed most of this discussion, but thank you for your
responses. Hopefully, I'll be able to figure out what they mean after I
get some coffee (I had a very late night working).
I organize all my sites the same way. Names of items are expressed as
directories. All pages are called index. So instead of this:
/folks
bob.html
bill.html
brent.html
I have this:
/folks
/bob
index.html
/bill
index.html
/brent
index.html
One big advantage is that this works even if I later switch to a static
HTML site, or a ruby site, or god-knows-what. And I can change
index.html to index.php or index.xml or whatever and the URLs don't
change. I learned this system ten years ago and it has served me very well.
It seems that Lift used to serve /folks/ when /folks was called, but
recently it stopped. It would be nice if it looked for a *file* with
that name first, but then tried directories if no file was found. Is
there a downside to that?
Sorry about the subject line. Couldn't resist.
Chas.
Timothy Perrett wrote:
>
> Hmmm, I see your point.
>
> Will have a noodle at the weekend and see what would be the best route.
>
> Cheers, Tim
>
> On 13/03/2009 17:45, "Derek Chen-Becker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well, treating a directory without a trailing slash (/path) as the
> directory + index (/path/index) is pretty standard behavior in web
> servers (Apache returns a 301 from the former to the latter), so I
> think something that requires less user intervention would be good.
> Perhaps at most we would want a boolean var on LiftRules to control
> the behavior.
>
> Derek
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Timothy Perrett
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Im pretty sure you could just do this with the existing
> infrastructure
> (RewritePF and DispatchPF)
>
> For instance, if Chas doesnt mind having two seperate resources,
> then
> he can easily use RewritePF to get the same content at two resource
> locations. Alternatively, he could just use a 301 redirect
> response in
> a dispatch call to get the appropriate resource - I've posted
> code to
> one of his questions about that before If memory serves.
>
> I think that should all be cool? Cant think of a good reason why
> this
> wouldnt work anyway :-)
>
> Cheers, Tim
>
> On Mar 13, 4:57 pm, Derek Chen-Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I think I was confusing this with some other behavior of
> SiteMap, hence my
> > question. I think it would be good to allow some really
> pre-processing of
> > the URL. Would it useful to allow the user to control it, or
> do you think it
> > would be better to just make it implicit? Something like
> >
> > LiftRules.pathRewrite.append {
> > case List("parse") => List("parse", "index")
> > ...
> >
> > }
> >
> > I'm doing a lot of wand-waving there, but does that seem like
> a reasonable
> > approach from the user side of things? Or maybe make a subclass of
> > RewriteResponse that just tells Lift to modify the path but
> change nothing
> > else?
> >
> > case class ModifiedPath (path : List[String]) extends
> RewriteResponse(...)
> >
> > Derek
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Timothy Perrett
> > <[email protected]>wrote <[email protected]>wrote>:
> >
> > > Within Lift, /page does what it says on the tin, whilst
> /page/ actually
> > > works out as:
> >
> > > /page/index
> >
> > > IMO, this is good. If you want them to be the same, I think
> you could
> > > either do a rewrite to the same content (if memory serves
> there is also a
> > > boolean option for defining if your using the slash or not?)
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure it matters not of you are or are not using
> site map at this
> > > process is part of lifts request handling.
> >
> > > Does that help?
> >
> > > Cheers, Tim
> >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 13 Mar 2009, at 14:27, Derek Chen-Becker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm. I thought that this was what normally happened with
> most web servers
> > > (Jetty included). Are you using SiteMap, by any chance? What
> is the
> > > difference that you see between a response for /page and
> /page/ ?
> >
> > > Derek
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Charles F. Munat <
> <[email protected]>
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> It would be advantageous for me, given the way I organize
> my sites, if
> > >> requests for /page were served the same way as requests for
> /page/, or
> > >> at least /page redirected to /page/.
> >
> > >> Is there an easy way to do this?
> >
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Chas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
