It probably should ... but personally I still believe in equal rights
of 404 pages with any other template.
David's solution is great and definitely works. But this thread made
me realize that a higher/easier level of addressing this is helpful.
From user perspective saying something like .. .if
That sounds like a great approach to me Marius!
On Jan 1, 6:31 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
It probably should ... but personally I still believe in equal rights
of 404 pages with any other template.
David's solution is great and definitely works. But this thread made
me realize
You could put a Script tag and inside set the title via JavaScript?
But I'm still working on the solution I proposed which treats 404 as a
normal page. Not sure if Dave will like it (probably not) but I'll
send him a diff.
Br's,
Marius
On Dec 31, 5:43 am, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
Ok, I tried this, it gets closer.
I noticed one issue: the head merge didn't get done, so I have two
head tags in the result. I'm attempting to set the title in the
404.html template, maybe there is a way I can set the
That sounds great.
Just curious though, is there any chance runTemplate should just do
the head merge?
On Dec 31, 3:12 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
Ok, I tried this, it gets closer.
I noticed one
I'll try out that solution Russ, thanks. Although as the solution
gets a bit more complex, and taking into account Marius's advice, it
sounds like this might not be the right direction to go in.
Stepping back a moment, conceptually what I'd like to do is: create a
nice 404.html template (using
Google's opinion:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/08/farewell-to-soft-404s.html
On Dec 30, 10:05 am, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
I'll try out that solution Russ, thanks. Although as the solution
gets a bit more complex, and taking into account Marius's advice, it
On Dec 30, 5:05 pm, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
I'll try out that solution Russ, thanks. Although as the solution
gets a bit more complex, and taking into account Marius's advice, it
sounds like this might not be the right direction to go in.
Stepping back a moment, conceptually
Ouch, it does sound ugly. Is there some alternative way to change the
currently requested URI, for the purposes of sitemap generation and so
on? It seems like the alternative is spinning one's own SiteMap menu
snippet that knows to do this work?
Also, it seems odd there's no way to invoke
Please see my previous reply and the proposed solution.
Br's,
Marius
On Dec 30, 6:12 pm, Ross Mellgren dri...@gmail.com wrote:
Ouch, it does sound ugly. Is there some alternative way to change the
currently requested URI, for the purposes of sitemap generation and so
on? It seems like the
While I totally agree that a plain 404 + markup is much more
straightforward,
breaks internet are too big words :) .. sending back a
302 or 301 tells the UA you asked me for a resource that I know I
don't have but I wont tell
you explicitely, instead I want you to go to this location as an
At any rate, I'm just trying to help Alex, I'm not invested in any
reason other than it's informative to try and solve. Is there any way
to get a templated 404 response?
Sorry Ross, perhaps my response didn't convey my appreciation for your
help, or maybe it came off sounding negative, I
Please open a defect here http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues ...
whether or not this solution will make it in master will be subject
for reviewboard. The solution I proposed has a breaking change by the
introduction of Either[List[String], LiftResponse] instead of
LiftResponse but I don't think
Oh no problem, I was intending this as a reply to the you guys
Marius used, to make it clear that I don't have a particular use case,
though I do agree about the soft 404s.
-Ross
On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Alex Black wrote:
At any rate, I'm just trying to help Alex, I'm not invested in
I opened a ticket: http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues/#issue/265
I hope I wrote it in a reasonable/acceptable way, its my first ticket.
- Alex
On Dec 30, 11:26 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
Please open a defect herehttp://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues...
whether or not this
perfect, thanks.
On Dec 30, 6:40 pm, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
I opened a ticket:http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues/#issue/265
I hope I wrote it in a reasonable/acceptable way, its my first ticket.
- Alex
On Dec 30, 11:26 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
Please open
Would it not be possible to have a LiftResponse that runs through the regular
plumbing? This way instead of introducing Either you can just use a
TemplateResponse etc.
-
Mariusmarius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
Please open a defect here
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
Please open a defect here http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues ...
whether or not this solution will make it in master will be subject
for reviewboard. The solution I proposed has a breaking change by the
introduction of
Overall this feature seems most similar to 'rewriting'. E.g. the url
comes in as http://localhost/foobar;, we don't recognize it, so we'll
re-write it to template 404.
What about Either[RewriteResponse, LiftResponse]? E.g. same as what
Marius suggested but use RewriteResponse instead of String.
It's not rewriting.
I didn't say it was. I just said it seemed most similar to re-writing.
Trying to mix the two will muddy the concept of rewriting and when it
happens.
Makes sense.
As far as I can tell, the two problems you are facing are:
1. There's a non-trivial amount of your
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Alex Black a...@alexblack.ca wrote:
Overall this feature seems most similar to 'rewriting'. E.g. the url
comes in as http://localhost/foobar;, we don't recognize it, so we'll
re-write it to template 404.
It's not rewriting. Rewriting is the change of the
In Boot.scala (the boot method):
LiftRules.passNotFoundToChain = false
LiftRules.uriNotFound.prepend {
case _ = generate404()
}
In the Boot class:
def generate404(): LiftResponse = {
import scala.xml.Node
val resp: Box[Node] = S.setVars(expandAll - true) {
Ok, I tried this, it gets closer.
I noticed one issue: the head merge didn't get done, so I have two
head tags in the result. I'm attempting to set the title in the
404.html template, maybe there is a way I can set the title without
using head merge?
- Alex
On Dec 30, 2:54 pm, David Pollak
To be clear, RewriteResponse is a LiftResponse, and therefore, valid.
I had tried it, and got a compile error, keep in mind I'm still on
1.0:
http://scala-tools.org/scaladocs/liftweb/1.0/net/liftweb/http/RewriteResponse.html
If you want to display the contents of your 404.html, checkout
Switch to 1.1-M8, if you can.
-Ross
On Dec 29, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Alex Black wrote:
To be clear, RewriteResponse is a LiftResponse, and therefore, valid.
I had tried it, and got a compile error, keep in mind I'm still on
1.0:
Is M8 pretty stable? A little while back DavidP recommended M6 as being the
most stable of the milestones.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Ross Mellgren dri...@gmail.com wrote:
Switch to 1.1-M8, if you can.
-Ross
On Dec 29, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Alex Black wrote:
To be clear,
M8 is pretty stable, yes. M7 was not, and so M6 was recommended before
that. I haven't heard of any reason to recommend M6 over M8, but maybe
dpp has some reasons.
-Ross
On Dec 29, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Alex Black wrote:
Is M8 pretty stable? A little while back DavidP recommended M6 as
If you want to display the contents of your 404.html, checkout
NodeResponse... just load up your template using the template helpers (this
will give you NodeSeq) and then you can present that back to the user. Job
done.
I am familiar with NodeResponse and its subclasses. I've used them in
Quite so, go for M8. M6 was recommended when M8 hadn't come out.
Cheers, Indrajit
On 29/12/09 11:44 PM, Ross Mellgren wrote:
M8 is pretty stable, yes. M7 was not, and so M6 was recommended before
that. I haven't heard of any reason to recommend M6 over M8, but maybe
dpp has some reasons.
Ok, I got this working, with 1.1-M8 using S.render.
// A node which embeds our 404 template (e.g. 404.html)
val notFoundNode =
lift:embed what=404 /
// Catch 404s
LiftRules.uriNotFound.prepend {
case (req, _) = XhtmlTemplateResponse(notFoundNode, 404)
}
// If you're
Keep in mind that Lift's behavior for 404s differs between development and
production mode in Lift 1.1-xxx
To have your app/Lift handle a 404 rather than passing it to your web
container, in Boot.scala:
LiftRules.passNotFoundToChain = false
LiftRules.uriNotFound.prepend {
case _ =
Thanks for pointing that out, the catch-all sounds dangerous.
I tried your suggestion, and it works well except I'm encountering one
issue, my sitemap renders as No Navigation Defined. for urls that
are not found. I'm using 1.1-M8, I launched jetty in production mode
as you indicated, and added
This is the production run mode thing dpp talked about. Try your app with
-Drun.mode=production
-Ross
On Dec 29, 2009, at 7:39 PM, Alex Black wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out, the catch-all sounds dangerous.
I tried your suggestion, and it works well except I'm encountering one
issue,
I emailed Ross directly and said I did run with -Drun.mode=production.
Here's what I'm seeing:
1. If I run with -Drun.mode=production, and I access a not found url,
say mysite.com/foobar, then, I *do* see the custom 404 page as
expected, but, where I normally see my sitemap I see No Navigation
One more detail:
notFoundNode is defined like this:
val notFoundNode = lift:embed what=404 /
and 404.html like this:
lift:surround with=default at=content
head
titlePage Not Found/title
/head
h1Page Not Found/h1
pWe couldn't find the page you were looking
I noticed another problem: the head merge is not working in this
scenario, the resulting page is not valid XHTML because it has two
head tags :) So, this makes me think I'm going about things the wrong
way.
I'm hoping you can suggest the right way, to create a custom 404 page,
correctly (without
I think the problem with the site map is that the request you have is for a
page that doesn't exist so it can't build the current-page-relative sitemap.
Here's a version that works:
In Boot:
val notFoundNode = lift:embed what=404 /
LiftRules.uriNotFound.prepend {
37 matches
Mail list logo
