On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:08 PM, armhold <armh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm really grateful for this conversation, as I've been wondering the > same question for a while now. > > Martin writes: > >> So far I didn't hear a good explanation why the page id causes you >> troubles. Most of you are saying "it is ugly". > > Well it is kind of ugly. It is far less ugly than the 1.4-style > "?wicket:interface=:1::::" URLs though. And after reading your and > Igor's explanation, I understand better now why it's done this way, so > thank you for that. > > As for why it causes troubles: I've done a handful of wicket projects > for different clients in the past year, and I get asked about this by > the project owners *every* *single* *time*. > > For projects where users log in, create accounts, etc, the > stakeholders are generally willing to accept the URL param (though > they grumble a little bit). > > But for projects where a significant portion of the app's > functionality is exposed to "drive by" users, stakeholders won't > typically compromise on the URL structure. Some of their concerns come > down to simple aesthetics. But a common objection is "it's hurting our > SEO". The stated SEO concerns are that: > > A. page request results in a 302
Use RenderStrategy#ONE_PASS_RENDER > B. search engines don't like to index urls with query params (probably > apocryphal, or at least no longer true) > C. page analytics- you now need to normalize URLs against the "?N" > param > > Some (perhaps all?) of the SEO issues might be addressable by link > rel="canonical"; I haven't tested it yet against 1.5. > >> Case 3 is what the bots and not logged in users should see. Bots >> don't use sessions so don't let them go in the stateful area of your >> app. > > If I understand correctly, this means no Ajax components at all on > "not logged in" pages. For a lot of sites that just plain won't > work. Please correct me if I have misunderstood something. Use Jolira's stateless Ajax components/behaviors. > > I have a 1.4 project whose migration to 1.5 has been on hold for a > while, in part due to the URL changes we'll have to make. I'm weighing > the benefits of this NoVersionMount that was proposed to see what > potential side effects it might have. So far it looks like it will > cause loss of Ajax state if the user reloads the page or hits the back > button, but no different from what currently happens in 1.4. I think > that's probably a reasonable tradeoff for some apps, as long as you're > aware of it. One issue (raised elsewhere on this list recently) is how > to use NoVersionMount with the home page, since it's not explicitly > mounted in WicketApplication. HomePageMapper is explicitly registered in SystemMapper (the default compound root mapper). The resource mapper example in wicket-examples also mounts custom home mapper. > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/I-don-t-want-url-page-count-parameter-localhost-8080-context-0-tp4481510p4506482.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
