www.myApp.com/updateChartOfAccounts. Because that would be "out ofDavid H <bluepaul@earthlink.net> wrote:If I might disagree, keeping a stable URL is not, by itself, "user-defeating". For example, user's do not like browser history clutter with subfolders and objects - all from the same application.
POST conceals parameters not paths from history. And I only described a WAY to handle the problem.context". Sure you can respond with an error message. But why should they see it in the first place?They shouldn't, the application should be written in such a way that this is a POST, and it won't appear in the history.
I wish I could impose my ideas on users. I respond to specs. Yes, I will fight the good fight when a spec is silly. I've even turned down gigs because the client was stubborn and what they wanted would be a disaster. But URL "cloaking" is not silly to some clients and the pattern I described handles it nicely and has benefits well beyond maintaining a stable URL.With a stable URL they just click www.myApp.com and they get the main page - every time.That's what bookmarks are for. You're trying to force your ideas of bookmarking and history management to the users.
Im curious, how is it "hostile" to a user?The question remains - is there an elegant solution to this.What you call "stable URL" everybody else calls "cloaking" or "jailing". It *is* hostile to the user.