Re: header() vs. fsockopen for "Location: http:www.d.com"....

Thanks... FletchSOD "Raditha Dissanayake" <jabber@raditha.com> wrote in message news:4058F83A.8020506@raditha.com... > Hi Scott, > This has been heavily discussed in recent weeks you will find lots of > pointers in the archives. But in short there's no harm in > header("Location:"); > > Scott Fletcher wrote: > > >Hi! > > > > Let's say there are 3 webpages with webpage #1 for customer filling out > >the form and submit it to webpage #2 for processing and database > >insert/update then php header("Location: > >http://www.whatever.com") to > >redirect the webapge to webpage #3. (or back to webpage #1). That way, the > >web-browser doesn't have a history of webpage #2, so the database is immune > >to browser's refresh/back/forward button (from database duplication). Now I > >have people telling me that it is not healthy to use the header("Location: > >blah blah") to force the web browser to redirect and that I should use the > >fsockopen instead. A fsockopen on webpage #2 on the Apache's side where PHP > >can open a port to send a request to apache to have it to send a webpage #3 > >to the web browser. That sound okay to me but I see one big problem. If > >fsockopen is used on webpage #2 to emulate a webpage #3 then the web browser > >only see webpage #2 and webpage #3 together as webpage #2. > > > > I see no idea workaround to it, in fact there is none. So, it look like > >I have to stick to header("Location: blah blah"). So, what is your thought > >and opinion. If there is a workaround them I'm all ear!. > > > >FletchSOD > > > > > > > > > -- > Raditha Dissanayake. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.radinks.com/upload/ > Drag and Drop Upload thousands of files and folders in a single > transfer. (HTTP or FTP)