Re: General use of rewrite / redirect
| From: | Per Jessen | Date: | Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:24:51 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: General use of rewrite / redirect | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-271727@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Aschwin Wesselius wrote:
> Per Jessen wrote:
>>
>> I'm having difficulties following you - a plain 303 redirect to a "Thank
>> you" page shouldn't cause all of that. It's an HTTP reply with the 303
>> and the new URL, followed by a single URL request from the browser.
>>
> OK. I think I know how other people (like you) think about just
> requesting URL's one after another. If that's not such a performance
> issue for you, fine.
It's not really - serving URLs one after another is what apache is good
at :-)
> A plain 303 redirect mostly isn't just a HTML file, it's another script
> (or the same script with another action falling through a switch
> statement, whatever).
I disagree - unless the 303 directs back to a new form-entry, the
redirect URL is almost always a plain static page. Well, in my designs
anyway.
> Point is: why hitting you webserver with multiple requests per user,
> just after submitting a form or whatever caused the redirect? If you
> have 2 users per day, that won't hurt. But if you have 30.000 concurrent
> users a minute, that could be 60.000 requests (besides all the images,
> stylesheets, javascripts that are being re-requested).
Of which a lot will be cached. But I get your point.
The main question is - what is the alternative to the 303? Sometimes I
use a method where I set a messages in $_SESSION which will then be
displayed on the next page, but I usually only use that in closed
(=non-public) web-apps. Even then I still issue the 303 - I don't see
how you can get around that.
Wrt performance - the old adage of "buy a bigger box" is becoming more
and more applicable every day. It's not always one I agree with, but
sometimes performance problems _are_ best solved by a bigger box.
> Or am I talking nonsense?
You seem to be stuck on the possible performance issues in the
superfluous serving and processing of a "Thank you" page. Granted, if
your thankyou.html includes all sort of superfluous processing, you've
got a problem, but you solve that by getting rid of all that superfluous
code (in the 303 page).
/Per Jessen