> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:50 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: OT ISAPI Rewrite > > > Actually, according to Michael Dinowitz (and I'm not sure > > where he gets his facts from), static extensions have a > > slightly higher rank then dynamic ones. > > I am only sure where I get my facts from. My understanding, based on my > own > experience, is that this is not the case. My experience is backed by our > own > results with SEO. Among other things, Fig Leaf Software provides SEO > services. Again, Google does not provide details about their page rank > algorithms, and they change these algorithms pretty frequently.
You had one type of experience, obviously Michael had another. As you mentioned, the algorithm that google uses is secret, and Michael did say slight advantage, so I guess we'll never know who's right. > And again, in any case, if you want to achieve that outcome, you can just > configure CF to process requests with .html in the URL pattern. This is true. > > The argument against doing CF to do the URL rewriting is that > > Apache is faster ... > > I am unwilling to waste my time in a pointless, inane argument with you > about web servers, since when it comes to this subject you are, by any > useful definition of the word, a troll. This is cf-talk, not > web-server-talk. You seem to be drawn to every IIS configuration question > like a moth to a flame. But that's your problem, not mine. Anyway, there > are > obvious arguments in favor of embedding that kind of functionality in an > application: portability, easy programmatic modification, the ability to > generate rewrite rules from a database query, etc, etc. I agree that there are reasons for embedding the rewriting functionality in CF, but there are also reasons against it, most notably speed. I understand that you have to make excuses for your web server because it doesn't support a certain feature. I'm not sure why you felt that you have to resort to name calling. Perhaps it is because you have conceded my argument. I humbly accept your surrender. This is CF-Talk, and managing a web server is part of the job for a lot of us. When a problem comes up that might be related to IIS, I simply point out that Apache might be a good solution to the problem that the person is having. If someone was using Apache and complained that they couldn't understand the configuration files and wanted a GUI, wouldn't you suggest they move to IIS? If someone said that they were using Apache and needed to deploy a .NET app, would you not suggest they switch to IIS? Having a GUI and hosting .NET apps well are IIS' strengths. Similarly, when an issue comes up where I feel that Apache will outshine IIS, I simply suggest it as an alternative. I don't bash IIS on purpose; just provide arguments for Apache when someone asks for them. I must say, It really is sad, that even with IIS 7, MS has not provided the rewriting functionality as part of the server. Russ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:274396 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
