In a web application using an MVC layout, should HTTP Headers be set in the controller or the view? My thoughts:
Controller: Setting the header here seems appropriate, as this is part of taking a request, and setting necessary variables to handle it on the server side.
View: An HTTP header is really just a few lines of text above the rest of the content being served up, and that text is arguably the view.
I wouldn't gasp to see headers set in either location. What is the best practice?
The view’s responsibility is anything that is sent to the user. The format of the content doesn’t matter. The view doesn’t know how that content will be parsed – in a web browser, a console, Lynx …
An example: you want to debug your AJAX requests and send data about the inner processes to the browser. You don’t want to mangle that information into your DOM, so you use HTTP headers instead. These headers are meant to be viewed in the browser’s debugger. The view in your application just doesn’t know if you are actually looking at its output.
Basic rule: whenever you sent a single Byte to the user, use the view.
I'm using Response.Redirect to serve media files, but don't want people to see the direct url to the files nor the subdomain (host). Is it possible to fake a 'get', and hide host and referer?
Use a Server.Transfer to transfer the request processing to another page.
When you use the Transfer method, the state information for all the
built-in objects are included in the transfer. This means that any
variables or objects that have been assigned a value in session or
application scope are maintained. In addition, all of the current
contents for the Request collections are available to the .asp file
that is receiving the transfer.
Server.Transfer acts as an efficient replacement for the
Response.Redirect method. Response.Redirect specifies to the browser
to request a different page. Because a redirect forces a new page
request, the browser makes two requests to the Web server, so the Web
server handles an extra request. IIS 5.0 introduced a new function,
Server.Transfer, which transfers execution to a different ASP page on
the server. This avoids the extra request, resulting in better overall
system performance, as well as a better user experience.
Since the browser doesn't make another request, the url is totally hidden from the browser, but it still gets the file that will be served by your redirect url.
What you want is not possible - for a simple reason: To have the client download the file directly from another source, you need to communicate the information about the location to the client in some way: If the client doesn't know the location, it can't download from there.
Whatever you try in the way of obfuscation, if it is decodable for the client browser, it is decodable for a human being armed with firebug.
In the current HTTP spec, the URL fragment (the part of the URL including and following the #) is not sent to the server in any way. However with the increased spread of AJAX, which uses the fragment to maintain some form of state, there are a lot of situations where it would be useful for the server to have knowledge of the URL fragment at request time.
For example, if you go to http://facebook.com, then click a user name in your stream, the URL will become http://faceboook.com/#!/username - to allow FB to update your page without reloading all of its bootstrap JS and HTML. However, if you were to reload this with your browser, the server would have no way of seeing the "#/!username" part of the URL, and therefore could not pre-render the content for you. This forces your browser to make an extra request once the client Javascript has loaded and parsed the fragment.
I am wondering if there have been any efforts or proposals towards creating a standard mechanism to achieve this.
For example, there could be a standard HTTP header, which would be sent with the value of the URL fragment - any server which cared about such things could then have access to it.
It seems like this would be a very useful thing for the web-application community as a whole, so I am surprised to not have heard anything proposed. Perhaps I missed it though.
Imho, the fragment identifier really is not a good place to store the state, it has been designed for something else.
That being said, http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/154 has a good discussion of the whole subject.
I found this proposal by Google to make Ajax pages crawlable, but it addresses a more constrained set of use cases. Specifically, it creates a way to replace the URL fragment with a URL parameter to obtain the same HTML output from the server as would be generated by a client visiting the equivalent URL with the fragment. However, such URLs are useless for actually running the Ajax apps, since they would necessitate a page reload every time.
Webkit Bug 24175 - URL Redirect Loses Fragment refers to Handling of fragment identifiers in redirected URLs which may be of interest.
A suggestion for a future version of HTTP may be to add an (optional)
Fragment header to the request, which holds the fragment identifier.
Even simpler may be to allow an HTTP request to contain a fragment
identifier.
Anyone know if it's possible to access the name of a jump link in c# code?
I'm doing some url Rewriting stuff and I'm thinking I might not be able to see that part of the URL.
So basically, my URL looks a little something like this:
http://www.mysite.com/Terms.aspx#Term1
And I want to access "Term1". I can't see it in the ServerVariables...
Any ideas?!?!?
THANKS!
The hash character is meant for client side navigation. Anything after the # is not submitted to the server.
From the wikipedia article:
The fragment identifier functions differently than the rest of the URI: namely, its processing is exclusively client-side with no participation from the server. When an agent (such as a Web browser) requests a resource from a Web server, the agent sends the URI to the server, but does not send the fragment.
Its technical name is Fragment Identifier
Perhaps System.Uri.Fragment? Or what is it you don't see?
What is difference between Server.Transfer and Response.Redirect?
What are advantages and disadvantages of each?
When is one appropriate over the other?
When is one not appropriate?
Response.Redirect simply sends a message (HTTP 302) down to the browser.
Server.Transfer happens without the browser knowing anything, the browser request a page, but the server returns the content of another.
Response.Redirect() will send you to a new page, update the address bar and add it to the Browser History. On your browser you can click back.
Server.Transfer() does not change the address bar. You cannot hit back.
I use Server.Transfer() when I don't want the user to see where I am going. Sometimes on a "loading" type page.
Otherwise I'll always use Response.Redirect().
To be Short: Response.Redirect simply tells the browser to visit another page. Server.Transfer helps reduce server requests, keeps the URL the same and, with a little bug-bashing, allows you to transfer the query string and form variables.
Something I found and agree with (source):
Server.Transfer is similar in that it sends the user to another page
with a statement such as Server.Transfer("WebForm2.aspx"). However,
the statement has a number of distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Firstly, transferring to another page using Server.Transfer
conserves server resources. Instead of telling the browser to
redirect, it simply changes the "focus" on the Web server and
transfers the request. This means you don't get quite as many HTTP
requests coming through, which therefore eases the pressure on your
Web server and makes your applications run faster.
But watch out: because the "transfer" process can work on only those
sites running on the server; you can't use Server.Transfer to send
the user to an external site. Only Response.Redirect can do that.
Secondly, Server.Transfer maintains the original URL in the browser.
This can really help streamline data entry techniques, although it may
make for confusion when debugging.
That's not all: The Server.Transfer method also has a second
parameter—"preserveForm". If you set this to True, using a statement
such as Server.Transfer("WebForm2.aspx", True), the existing query
string and any form variables will still be available to the page you
are transferring to.
For example, if your WebForm1.aspx has a TextBox control called
TextBox1 and you transferred to WebForm2.aspx with the preserveForm
parameter set to True, you'd be able to retrieve the value of the
original page TextBox control by referencing
Request.Form("TextBox1").
Response.Redirect() should be used when:
we want to redirect the request to some plain HTML pages on our server or to some other web server
we don't care about causing additional roundtrips to the server on each request
we do not need to preserve Query String and Form Variables from the original request
we want our users to be able to see the new redirected URL where he is redirected in his browser (and be able to bookmark it if its necessary)
Server.Transfer() should be used when:
we want to transfer current page request to another .aspx page on the same server
we want to preserve server resources and avoid the unnecessary roundtrips to the server
we want to preserve Query String and Form Variables (optionally)
we don't need to show the real URL where we redirected the request in the users Web Browser
Response.Redirect redirects page to another page after first page arrives to client. So client knows the redirection.
Server.Transfer quits current execution of the page. Client does not know the redirection. It allows you to transfer the query string and form variables.
So it depends to your needs to choose which is better.
"response.redirect" and "server.transfer" helps to transfer user from one page to other page while the page is executing. But the way they do this transfer / redirect is very different.
In case you are visual guy and would like see demonstration rather than theory I would suggest to see the below facebook video which explains the difference in a more demonstrative way.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=762186150488997
The main difference between them is who does the transfer. In "response.redirect" the transfer is done by the browser while in "server.transfer" it’s done by the server. Let us try to understand this statement in a more detail manner.
In "Server.Transfer" following is the sequence of how transfer happens:-
1.User sends a request to an ASP.NET page. In the below figure the request is sent to "WebForm1" and we would like to navigate to "Webform2".
2.Server starts executing "Webform1" and the life cycle of the page starts. But before the complete life cycle of the page is completed “Server.transfer” happens to "WebForm2".
3."Webform2" page object is created, full page life cycle is executed and output HTML response is then sent to the browser.
While in "Response.Redirect" following is the sequence of events for navigation:-
1.Client (browser) sends a request to a page. In the below figure the request is sent to "WebForm1" and we would like to navigate to "Webform2".
2.Life cycle of "Webform1" starts executing. But in between of the life cycle "Response.Redirect" happens.
3.Now rather than server doing a redirect , he sends a HTTP 302 command to the browser. This command tells the browser that he has to initiate a GET request to "Webform2.aspx" page.
4.Browser interprets the 302 command and sends a GET request for "Webform2.aspx".
In other words "Server.Transfer" is executed by the server while "Response.Redirect" is executed by thr browser. "Response.Redirect" needs to two requests to do a redirect of the page.
So when to use "Server.Transfer" and when to use "Response.Redirect" ?
Use "Server.Transfer" when you want to navigate pages which reside on the same server, use "Response.Redirect" when you want to navigate between pages which resides on different server and domain.
Below is a summary table of which chalks out differences and in which scenario to use.
The beauty of Server.Transfer is what you can do with it:
TextBox myTxt = (TextBox)this.Page.PreviousPage.FindControl("TextBoxID");
You can get anything from your previous page using the above method as long as you use Server.Transfer but not Response.Redirect
In addition to ScarletGarden's comment, you also need to consider the impact of search engines and your redirect. Has this page moved permanently? Temporarily? It makes a difference.
see: Response.Redirect vs. "301 Moved Permanently":
We've all used Response.Redirect at
one time or another. It's the quick
and easy way to get visitors pointed
in the right direction if they somehow
end up in the wrong place. But did you
know that Response.Redirect sends an
HTTP response status code of "302
Found" when you might really want to
send "301 Moved Permanently"?
The distinction seems small, but in
certain cases it can actually make a
big difference. For example, if you
use a "301 Moved Permanently" response
code, most search engines will remove
the outdated link from their index and
replace it with the new one. If you
use "302 Found", they'll continue
returning to the old page...
There are many differences as specified above. Apart from above all, there is one more difference. Response.Redirect() can be used to redirect user to any page which is not part of the application but Server.Transfer() can only be used to redirect user within the application.
//This will work.
Response.Redirect("http://www.google.com");
//This will not work.
Server.Transfer("http://www.google.com");
Transfer is entirely server-side. Client address bar stays constant. Some complexity about the transfer of context between requests. Flushing and restarting page handlers can be expensive so do your transfer early in the pipeline e.g. in an HttpModule during BeginRequest. Read the MSDN docs carefully, and test and understand the new values of HttpContext.Request - especially in Postback scenarios. We usually use Server.Transfer for error scenarios.
Redirect terminates the request with a 302 status and client-side roundtrip response with and internally eats an exception (minor server perf hit - depends how many you do a day) Client then navigates to new address. Browser address bar & history updates etc. Client pays the cost of an extra roundtrip - cost varies depending on latency. In our business we redirect a lot we wrote our own module to avoid the exception cost.
Response.Redirect is more costly since it adds an extra trip to the server to figure out where to go.
Server.Transfer is more efficient however it can be a little mis-leading to the user since the Url doesn't physically change.
In my experience, the difference in performance has not been significant enough to use the latter approach
Server.Transfer doesn't change the URL in the client browser, so effectively the browser does not know you changed to another server-side handler. Response.Redirect tells the browser to move to a different page, so the url in the titlebar changes.
Server.Transfer is slightly faster since it avoids one roundtrip to the server, but the non-change of url may be either good or bad for you, depending on what you're trying to do.
Response.Redirect: tells the browser that the requested page can be found at a new location. The browser then initiates another request to the new page loading its contents in the browser. This results in two requests by the browser.
Server.Transfer: It transfers execution from the first page to the second page on the server. As far as the browser client is concerned, it made one request and the initial page is the one responding with content.
The benefit of this approach is one less round trip to the server from the client browser. Also, any posted form variables and query string parameters are available to the second page as well.
Just more details about Transfer(), it's actually is Server.Execute() + Response.End(), its source code is below (from Mono/.net 4.0):
public void Transfer (string path, bool preserveForm)
{
this.Execute (path, null, preserveForm, true);
this.context.Response.End ();
}
and for Execute(), what it is to run is the handler of the given path, see
ASP.NET does not verify that the current user is authorized to view the resource delivered by the Execute method. Although the ASP.NET authorization and authentication logic runs before the original resource handler is called, ASP.NET directly calls the handler indicated by the Execute method and does not rerun authentication and authorization logic for the new resource. If your application's security policy requires clients to have appropriate authorization to access the resource, the application should force reauthorization or provide a custom access-control mechanism.
You can force reauthorization by using the Redirect method instead of the Execute method. Redirect performs a client-side redirect in which the browser requests the new resource. Because this redirect is a new request entering the system, it is subjected to all the authentication and authorization logic of both Internet Information Services (IIS) and ASP.NET security policy.
-from MSDN
Response.Redirect involves an extra round trip and updates the address bar.
Server.Transfer does not cause the address bar to change, the server responds to the request with content from another page
e.g.
Response.Redirect:-
On the client the browser requests a page http://InitiallyRequestedPage.aspx
On the server responds to the request with 302 passing the redirect address http://AnotherPage.aspx.
On the client the browser makes a second request to the address http://AnotherPage.aspx.
On the server responds with content from http://AnotherPage.aspx
Server.Transfer:-
On the client browser requests a page http://InitiallyRequestedPage.aspx
On the server Server.Transfer to http://AnotherPage.aspx
On the server the response is made to the request for http://InitiallyRequestedPage.aspx passing back content from http://AnotherPage.aspx
Response.Redirect
Pros:-
RESTful - It changes the address bar, the address can be used to record changes of state inbetween requests.
Cons:-
Slow - There is an extra round-trip between the client and server. This can be expensive when there is substantial latency between the client and the server.
Server.Transfer
Pros:-
Quick.
Cons:-
State lost - If you're using Server.Transfer to change the state of the application in response to post backs, if the page is then reloaded that state will be lost, as the address bar will be the same as it was on the first request.
Response.Redirect
Response.Redirect() will send you to a new page, update the address bar and add it to the Browser History. On your browser you can click back.
It redirects the request to some plain HTML pages on our server or to some other web server.
It causes additional roundtrips to the server on each request.
It doesn’t preserve Query String and Form Variables from the original request.
It enables to see the new redirected URL where it is redirected in the browser (and be able to bookmark it if it’s necessary).
Response. Redirect simply sends a message down to the (HTTP 302) browser.
Server.Transfer
Server.Transfer() does not change the address bar, we cannot hit back.One should use Server.Transfer() when he/she doesn’t want the user to see where he is going. Sometime on a "loading" type page.
It transfers current page request to another .aspx page on the same server.
It preserves server resources and avoids the unnecessary roundtrips to the server.
It preserves Query String and Form Variables (optionally).
It doesn’t show the real URL where it redirects the request in the users Web Browser.
Server.Transfer happens without the browser knowing anything, the browser request a page, but the server returns the content of another.