Currently my project has a page domain/cocktail which displays a list of all cocktails. If user wants to filter the list he can choose sorting order, cocktail's starting letter and strength. So url will look like domain/cocktail?letter=B&sort=nu&strength=2&page=4.
As I've read it is not the best choice to use such urls. What approach can you suggest to get SEO-friendly URLs with the same functionality.
ASP.NET MVC applications use the ASP.NET routing system, which decides how URLs map to particular controllers and actions.
Under default routing system when a browser requests http://yoursite/Home, it gets back the output from Controller's action method. Therefore if you use CoctailList action method to derive the list from backend, user will need to point at http://yoursite/Controller/CoctailList
In your situation, I would POST the search criteria, but I would put the page on end of the URL like:
domain/cocktail/2
domain/cocktail/3
You can post the data by creating a JSON object:
var viewModel = new Object();
viewModel.Letter = "B";
viewModel.Sort = "nu";
$.post("/domain/cocktail/" + page, viewModel, function () { });
Related
I am trying to generate content within a view based on a URL parameter.
For example:
10 companies, 30 users each
A user from company Google clicks a distributed icon that opens
www.****tickets.com/ticket/?c=Google
A custom ticketing page with textboxes, dropdownlists with
'Google-specific' categories and the Google logo is displayed.
All of this data will be handled by a common controller
I have lots of plans for this site, but this is step #1. I am pretty new to MVC, but I have a page propped up that has Users/Groups/Roles. I'm unsure if there would be a better way to implement this, such as Javascript.
EDIT: It looks like MVC Dynamic Forms could be useful for this application. Researching it now.
Your controller method for handling the URL /ticket should accept an optional parameter c. This will then automatically be populated by the value in the querystring. You can then hold this in a model and pass it into the view.
The code will be something like
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Ticket(string c = null)
{
//Get some data based on c
var model = new TicketModel
{
Company = c,
SomeDropdownValues = StuffYouReadFromTheDbUsingParameterC,
LogoPath = PathYouHaveCalculatedUsingParameterC
};
return View(model);
}
If you don't know how to use a model within a view look up the term "model binding". This article explains it clearly.
ASP MVC WebGrid renders pagination links like
http://host/AnyController/AnyAction?Length=4&page=1
Any chance to parametrize or customize this to
http://host/AnyController/AnyAction/1
to conform better to MVC routing conventions?
(NOT important: btw Length is redundant. If the controller's Action method does not know the page length, by heart that's problem. )
Thanks in advance
One way to handle your default route conflict can be this, as most of the time when you use you route it will hit the action method without the [HttpGet]. All you need to do is a GET, whenever you sort or page the web gird, it will try to get data and hit the a HttpGet Action, this will work as follows:
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult YourActionMethod()
{
return PartialView("YourView",YourModel);
}
The best part is, upon sorting, the request will send a parameter named as "sortBy" too, you can use this here and decide what you want to do with the binded Model with the grid. You can inspect what URL the Sort header will hit by using the "Developer Tools" in your browser. You can use this action do as you will,
Note : By default the action method it would be hitting would be same as the controller name.
I have a simple create action to receive post form data, save to db and redirect to list view.
The problem is, after redirecttoaction result excutes, the url on my browser lost the action section. Which it should be "http://{hotsname}/Product/List" but comes out as "http://{hotsname}/Product/".
Below is my code:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(VEmployee model, FormCollection fc)
{
var facility = FacilityFactory.GetEmployeeFacility();
var avatar = Request.Files["Avatar"].InputStream;
var newModel = facility.Save(model, avatar);
return RedirectToAction("List");
}
The page can correctly render list view content, but since some links in this view page use relative url, the functions are interrupted. I am now using return Redirect("/Employee/List") to force the url. But I just wonder why the action name is missing. I use MVC3 and .Net framwork 4.
I am new to ASP.Net MVC, thanks for help.
Your route table definitely says that "List" action is default, so when you redirect to it as RedirectToAction("List") - routing ommits the action because it is default.
Now if you remove the default value from your routes - RedirectToAction will produce a correct (for your case) Url, but you'll have to double check elsewhere that you are not relying on List being a default action.
Well, Chris,
If you get the right content on http://{hotsname}/Product/ then it seems that routing make that URL point to List either indirectly (using pattern like {controller}/{action}) and something wrong happens when resolving URL from route or {action} parameter is just set wth default value List. Both URLs can point to the same action but the routing engine somehow takes the route without explicit action name.
You should check:
Order in which you define your routes
How many routes can possibly lead to EmployeeController.List()
Which one of those routes has the most priority
Default values for your routes
Just make the route with explicit values: employee/list to point to your List action and make sure that is the route to select when generating links (it should be most specific route if possible).
It would be nice if you provide your routes mappings here.
but since some links in this view
page use relative url, the functions
are interrupted.
Why do you make it that way? Why not generate all the links through routing engine?
When using the overload RedirectToAction("Action") you need to be specifying an action that is in the same controller. Since you are calling an action in a different controller, you need to specify the action with the alternate overload e.g. RedirectToAction("List", "Employee").
I'm sorry to ask such a basic question, but it's kind of fundamental for me. To better understand filters, I need to understand this notions. Although I'm on ASP.NET MVC for few months now and now are doing nice demos, I'm more familiar with Action method concept than action result.
What are:
Action Method?
Action Result?
How are they related?
Let's say I've this
public ViewResult ShowPerson(int id)
{
var friend = db.Persons.Where(p => P.PersonID == id).First();
return View(friend);
}
How those concepts apply to the above code?
Thanks for helping.
In your example ShowPerson is the action. Each action needs to return an action result (In your case it returns a view). So when a controller action method is invoked it does some processing and decides what view would be best adapted to represent the model.
There are many different action results that you might use. They all derive from ActionResult:
ViewResult - if you want to return a View
FileResult - if you want to download a file
JsonResult - if you want to serialize some model into JSON
ContentResult - if you want to return plain text
RedirectResult - if you want to redirect to some other action
HttpUnauthorizedResult - if you want to indicate that the user is not authorized to access this action
FooBarResult - a custom action result that you wrote
Answer by #Darin-dimitrov is very much upto the point. But I see explanation given on MSDN also very much helpful.
Action methods typically have a one-to-one mapping with user
interactions. Examples of user interactions include entering a URL
into the browser, clicking a link, and submitting a form. Each of
these user interactions causes a request to be sent to the server. In
each case, the URL of the request includes information that the MVC
framework uses to invoke an action method.
When a user enters a URL into the browser, the MVC application uses
routing rules that are defined in the Global.asax file to parse the
URL and to determine the path of the controller. The controller then
determines the appropriate action method to handle the request. By
default, the URL of a request is treated as a sub-path that includes
the controller name followed by the action name. For example, if a
user enters the URL http://contoso.com/MyWebSite/Products/Categories,
the sub-path is /Products/Categories. The default routing rule treats
"Products" as the prefix name of the controller, which must end with
"Controller" (such as ProductsController). It treats "Categories" as
the name of the action. Therefore, the routing rule invokes the
Categories method of the Products controller in order to process the
request. If the URL ends with /Products/Detail/5, the default routing
rule treats "Detail" as the name of the action, and the Detail method
of the Products controller is invoked to process the request. By
default, the value "5" in the URL will be passed to the Detail method
as a parameter.
I want to build a ASP.NET MVC site so that the controller for a specific url is stored in the database instead of the URL.
The reason for that is that i'm building a CMS system and the users should be able to change the template (controller) without changing the URL. I also think that the name of the controller is not relevant for the end users and i want clean URL:s.
I realise that i could just add all routes at application start, but for a system with like 100 000 pages it feels like a bad idea.
Is it possible to store the url:s in the database and make a lookup for each request and then map that request to a specific controller?
Basically you'll have to implement your own IRouteHandler.
Part of the answer and some example code is in Option 3 of this question's answer:
ASP.NET MVC custom routing for search
More information:
http://weblogs.asp.net/fredriknormen/archive/2007/11/18/asp-net-mvc-framework-create-your-own-iroutehandler.aspx
Why couldn't you just do something like this:
-- Global.asax.cs --
routes.MapRoute(null, // Route name
"content/{id}", // URL with parameters
new { Controller = "Content", Action = "Show", Id = (string) null }); // Parameter defaults
-- /Controllers/ContentController.cs --
public class ContentController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Show(string id)
{
// Lookup the 'content' (article, page, blog post, etc) in the repository (database, xml file, etc)
ContentRepository repository = new ContentRepository();
Content content = repository.FindContent(id);
return View(content);
}
}
Such that a request to your site www.yoursite.com/content/welcome-to-my-first-blog-post would call ContentController.Show("welcome-to-my-first-blog-post").
I suppose ASP.NET can do many of the same things as PHP. If so there is a simple approach.
With rewrite rules you can easily send any traffic to any URL of the 100K to the same place. On that destination you could simply use the server variables containing the URL requested by the client and extract the location. Look it up in the DB and send the corresponding data for that URL back to the client on-the-fly.
"for a system with like 100,000 pages it feels like a bad idea."
It is a bad idea if you are creating a routing system that cannot be reused. The basic {controller}/{action}/{id} schema points you in the direction of reuse. This schema can be extended/revamped/recreated according to your needs.
Instead of thinking about how many pages you have think about how your resources can be grouped.
Instead of creating a heavy routing system why not create an anchor link control (ascx) which allows user to only add valid internal links. Keep a table in the db of your templates and their controllers to populate the control with it.