Skip to content

moved links from servicestack.net to mono.servicestack.net #30

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 7, 2013

Conversation

VirtueMe
Copy link

@VirtueMe VirtueMe commented Dec 7, 2013

I would really liked if servicestack.net used url rewrite to redirect to mono.servicestack.net when referenced by github or stackoverflow

<rules>
  <rule name="RedirectToMono" stopProcessing="true">
    <match url="(linksremovedpattern)" />
    <conditions>
      <add input="{HTTP_REFERER}" pattern="http://stackoverflow.com/(.*)" negate="true" />
    </conditions>
    <action type="Redirect" url="http://mono.servicestack.net/{R:1}" />
  </rule>
</rules>

mythz added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2013
moved links from servicestack.net to mono.servicestack.net
@mythz mythz merged commit ce39057 into ServiceStack:v3 Dec 7, 2013
@mythz
Copy link
Member

mythz commented Dec 7, 2013

ok great thx for the updating the links, but this rewrite rule is a temporary bandaid that firstly prohibits any links to the new website, includes some weird behavior that's dependent on the source of the link that you're asking to be added on a new AWS instance that has nothing to do with the old website that will just end up breaking eventually.

The old www. links already redirect. So it's just links starting with http://servicestack.net which need changing, that can easily be updated in GitHub by public wiki edits or pull-requests, and proposed for moderation in StackOverflow.

@VirtueMe
Copy link
Author

VirtueMe commented Dec 7, 2013

I see. I struggled with some code yesterday and all references to documentation or sample gave me a 404. The frustration was high last nigh as you hopefully understand.

I know all about the PITA keeping links up to date so I will not argue against the introduction of weird behavior on a site when your url rewrite rules goes bananas. We actually manually manage over 4000 different link redirects as we moved/merged over 20 domains to be only 10 domains but maintaining the redirects for the old links that not exists any more. On a different solution we have 1 code-base on a single server for 5 domanis, handling mappings with 10 rewrite rules. This amount of complexity introduced by the rules are the most I think is manageable before it's not possible to maintain them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants