I have a legacy site that uses shtml pages. I have a project to add dynamic functionality to this site -- an MVC app where the user uploads files and the controller generates an email.
For legacy reasons, I am not able to rewrite the site. I also do not have web admin access to the site; I can only work with files in my area. The path I have to work with is //host/foo/bar/baz.
According to this Stack Overflow question, I ought to be able to make a link in the originating static page within the directory baz as link text. I tried that, and after fixing up issues with the app's web.config file, I got a 404 error. This does make sense now that I think about it, as there is no directory in baz called Controller -- only bin, Views, and the like. The physical path not found is foo/bar/baz/Controller/Action.
There are plenty of articles and Stack Overflow questions about adding a static page to an MVC app, but I have found nothing discussing the other direction.
How do I link from the static HTML page to the MVC action?
(I may have follow-on questions as I try to get the app to run.)
Edited to add:
I tried moving the MVC app code to the top level of the web site (in my development environment). When I used the link this time, I encountered a configuration error in my IoC file, with mismatched versions of Entity Framework. This approach might be promising, and it also might encounter permissions issues in the operational environment.
Also, I do not have write permissions to the root level of the web server's documents area, only my subdirectory area.
link text
Try with "/" before controller
Related
So when I type npm run generate Nuxt generates my project into the dist folder. In that folder I can find a folder called _nuxt where I have .js files and the index.html file but when I open it in a browser it doesn't show anything.
So, my question is: Aren't those static files?
When you work with the CDN served vue.js you have the html file and you click and everything is showed on the browser because those .html files are static, they don't need an internal localhost server. Why npm run generate doesn't do the same? Or how can I see those generated files?
As #aljazerzen explained, Vue,js doesn't do SSR out of the box, one of the aims of Nuxt.js is to provide SSR for you, as a benefit you can also generate a static version of your website. If I get what you want correctly, what you want to do is that when you open your index.html (the one that Nuxt.js generates for you) you can see your functional webpage. When you're accessing your website as a file:/// url, your browser (at least I've seen it happen with Chrome) doesn't load your .js files.
I don't have any Nuxt generated websites at hand so I can't tell you exactly why this happen. But this is my guess: when Nuxt generate those files it gives them a src that can't be accessed as file:///, maybe something as /your_js.js, that when it tries to load it, thinks it's the / of the root folder instead of relative to your website's root (/).
The solution to this problem is to serve your assets using any web server. According to Nuxt.js's documentation:
nuxt generate :Build the application and generate every route as a HTML file (used for static hosting).
You could do a quick test and use a simple web server by typing:
python -m http.server
In the folder that contains your generated assets.
Hope this helps!
Nuxt uses server side rendering.
You can read more here.
To generate static HTML files, run:
nuxt generate
Explanation: Vanilla Vue.js application is rendered only when the page loads and JavaScript can start running. This means that some clients that do not have JavaScript enabled (web crawlers) won't see the page. Also for a brief second before Vue.js can render the page, there is blank screen, when plain HTML files could already be visible.
Now, server-side rendering (SSR) is a technique for rendering a single page app (SPA) on the server and then sending a fully rendered page to the client. The client’s JavaScript bundle can then take over and the SPA can operate as normal.
This can also help with SEO and with providing meta data to social media channels.
But on the downside (as you mentioned), such application cannot be hosted at a CDN, since you have to have a Node.js process running to render the page.
In my opinion, SSR is redundant with SPAs if what you are building is actually an application and not a website. A website should mostly display information and should not be interactive. It should leverage web-based mechanisms such as links, cookies and plain HTML with CSS. In the contrast, web application (eg. Vue.js application) should be more like a mobile application: it is larger to download, but performs better and offers much more interactive experience. Such application does not need server-side rendering, since we can wait for it to load a bit more and because it shouldn't be indexed by search engines (it is not a website).
When a website doesn't have an index.html file, the navigator displays an auto generated page right ?
Here is an example of what I mean.
This page is very handful to explore a website, but sadly it is only displayed when there is no index.html page.
Is it possible to access such a page on a website, even though index.html exists in the folder ?
I'm using Opera, but I have tried other navigators and none of the common ones seems to do what I want ^^
Thanks for reading
This is not an auto generated page. It is directory browsing of server which can be enabled/disabled through server control panel (or using .htaccess in linux servers).
When you have default document (like index.html) in a folder, the server servs the default document instead of directory browsing. So if you want to let directory browsing when you have index.html, you have to clear the index.hmtl from the list of default documents. This can be done using IIS settings (if you have access to server) or through hosting control panel in website settings (in shared hostings) (or by direct editing of web.config or .htaccess)
the navigator displays an auto generated page
No. This has nothing to do with the browser. The browser displays whatever the server returns. Nothing more, nothing less.
What you're seeing on that link is from the Apache web server. That web server is configured to (and can be configured not to) return a generated directory listing when no default response can be determined.
The "default response" might be index.html, or default.html, or literally anything that the web server is configured to look for by default. (Those are just, well, the common defaults.)
In many modern web applications the concept of a "page" doesn't even really mean the same thing, because things like MVC frameworks don't just browse directories for .html files but instead examine requested routes and generate responses from code.
Is it possible to access such a page on a website, eventho index.html exist in the folder ?
No. Because that "page" doesn't exist. The web server returned that to you because it was configured to. If it's not configured to then that data doesn't exist.
We have a few html pages in one of our solutions that are meant to be extremely simple, client side only, pure html+javascript pages that access our web api. The api itself is in a web application project in the same solution.
We are now using a web site project to contain those files, but it is getting harder and harder to manage that project, since it's information is placed on the solution, and most of it's aspects cannot be controlled like they can on a msbuild project file.
I'd like to migrate those html files to a web application project, but I'm struggling to make it as basic as possible. For instance, I do not want to generate any dlls on the project. It should be in the solution just to provide access to the files and to enable us to control what goes to the _PublishedWebsites folder on the build by setting the build action on the files. We need this because there are some miscellaneous files in the project that should not be published.
I tried creating an empty web application and removing most things from it, by editing the csproj file. I managed to delete all references and the whole Properties special folder (along with the AssemblyInfo.cs file), but when I run the build command, I still see a dll created along with the obj and bin folders. Then, I tried faking the build target on the csproj file, like this:
<Target Name="Build" />
Now when the project is built, no dll/pdb is created, but the obj and bin folders are still there. Next, I tried setting the outputpath property to the current directory, like this:
<OutputPath>.</OutputPath>
But even then, the obj folder is still created.
EDIT:
I just found another common msbuild property that controls where the files inside the obj folder are placed. After placing this in my csproj file:
<IntermediateOutputPath>.</IntermediateOutputPath>
I now get no folders generated on build, which is nice.
There is a small problem now though (and I'm not sure how and where exactly this process happens) when I open the solution or reload the project in Visual Studio. Even though the project is not being built at this time, some files are still generated:
I feel the current approach is enough for my requirements, yet I'd really like to know if there is a more elegant way to achieve that. Thus, the question holds: Is there a way to make the web application project work as if there was no code file in it, effectively disabling output generation (bin and obj folders, and the dll/xml/pdb outputs)?
I would like to create a Rails 4 app, where some data is entered into the db via a form and when it is published, any changes on the site are compiled and the entire consumer facing site is just a bunch of flat HTML files.
That way, on each request there isn't a db request done and just a simple HTML file is sent.
This is similar to the way Octopress operates, where you write a blog post locally and when you do a deploy it basically compiles the entire site into a large set of connected HTML files that are then pushed to your host(gh-pages for instance).
Is there a way to use extensive caching or something similar to get the same effect in Rails 4 or should I go about it another way in Rails or should I just try to customize Octopress for my needs?
Have a look at page caching, it has been moved from Rails to a separate gem
https://github.com/rails/actionpack-page_caching
It saves the generated HTML files to a specified directory which you should be able to deploy separately from the rest of the application.
I am making my first web site with OSX; this is an internal website for my company.
When the server start, I load pages from a different location, from the one that OSX server used to create my template site (because I do redirects that go on the same IP address, so the pages of the redirect obscure the ones from OSX server). These pages are served by a product called Buildbot (a CI server).
Now, I load the main page from the python directory on my computer, and I would like to avoid to get all the pages for the server there, to not mix them up with the buildbot pages; so I am trying to use the directory that OSX server created for me.
The issue thou, is that I do not know how to link pages...HTML is something that I forgot with time; but I remember that each site starts from a root directory, so the computer is protected by outsiders that may try to force it.
Now, I assume that my root is where the start page is loaded from (in my case is /Library/Python/2.7/site-packages/buildbot-0.8.8-py2.7.egg/buildbot/status/web/templates/), so if I use an href to link to another page, I can just access to this tree.
Which means that my website should be in a folder in this path? I can't seem to access the site where OSX server created the website resource (which in my case is Library/Server/Web/Data/Sites/mySite/).
Has been so long since when I used HTML, so I am quite rusty on the topic, and would appreciate a lot any kind of hint. The site will not be available outside our internal network, so I simply need to link pages and resources scattered on my server HD, and put them on web pages.
Here's how I understand:
Let's say your web root is /root, but you want to have a href to an html file in /dog, for example. Is this correct?
Assuming so, you cannot link an HTML file that is not in the web root, as the browser needs to be able to access it. If you were using a server-side programming language you could do this, but not with HTML.