Fred Claus

You want to tell us a little bit more about yourself? Post here!
Forum rules
We have no special rules for UVK forums. Just try to be polite and clear in your posts.
Please don't post spam in this forum. Spammers will be banned by IP, e-mail and username.
We reserve the right to delete all posts and ban all users we consider not having respected these rules without warning.
Charger440
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 7:44 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Fred Claus

Post by Charger440 » Wed May 27, 2015 1:24 am

It looks like there was some questionable implementation of 302 and it might be worth looking into 303 or 307. 307 is intended to be what 302 was supposed to be from what I can tell. I want sure what 302 actually was so went looking it to learn something new. That's how I ran across the other two.
Jim

It is not "Can it be done?" but rather, "How can we do it?"

Brink
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Fred Claus

Post by Brink » Wed May 27, 2015 2:46 pm

Jim, as long as an http GET being used by the link to request the file then 302 is appropriate in caching is not desired. The 307 is like a 302 that is able to handle http POST requests. I am not aware of an html anchor "the a tag" being able to produce a POST request. POST requests are usually reserved for when binary information need to be POSTed back to the server as part of the request. (such as an image upload) Webmasters typically trap POST requests from referrers on pages off server as a security measure anyway. (or at least I do) So the 302 would be the right way to handle a GET on a file that has moved and will continue to move at each new version release. If it were a webpage instead of a .exe I would handle it with php redirect then you have more control over what happens instead of a blind redirect, but it would not be advisable to tell the server to parse .exe files as php especially if the server is a windows box. lol

Charger440
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 7:44 am
Location: Missouri

Re: Fred Claus

Post by Charger440 » Wed May 27, 2015 5:11 pm

Brink

I see, I just suggested those as possibles because in some browsers 302 was not implemented according to the standard. Sounds like 302 would most likely work then.
Jim

It is not "Can it be done?" but rather, "How can we do it?"

Post Reply