Re: question about friendly URLs

farcry_n00b (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
> StephenMoretti wrote:
>> This is something that was discussed recently on the dev list - the
>> "go" has to be there in order for the web server and the application
>> to realise that something needs to be done with  the url path to make
>> it meaningful to the application.
>>
> 
> I grok that, and reading more about how it's implemented this makes sense. 
> There do exist CMS implementations out there that don't require a
> recognizable string for the appearance of "friendly" URLs but they are
> probably engineered in a fundamentally different way and resolve all URLs
> through the application stack I imagine (not just ones handed to the
> application stack by the web server based on rewrite rules or file
> extensions).  It's not a big deal, I'm sure folks around here could get used
> to "go" being in there.  I shouldn't have sounded down on the idea.

It's actually possible to run without /go/ it just means you need a bank 
of rewrite rules to accommodate things other than the CMS.  For example, 
you would want to exclude /images, /files, /css and so on.

Having a unique prefix makes it a lot simpler for us to manage a generic 
FU system that works for the majority of people without too much thought.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
-- 
Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.
http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-user" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-user-/[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-user-unsubscribe-/[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-user
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---