ASP.NET Core中Server.Transfer的替代 [英] Alternative to Server.Transfer in ASP.NET Core
问题描述
我正在将ASP.NET应用程序迁移到ASP.NET Core，并且他们对 HttpServerUtility.Transfer（字符串路径） 。但是， HttpServerUtility 在ASP.NET Core中不存在。
I am migrating an ASP.NET application to ASP.NET Core and they have some calls to HttpServerUtility.Transfer(string path). However, HttpServerUtility does not exist in ASP.NET Core.
我可以使用其他替代方法吗？或者是 Response.Redirect 是我唯一的选择？
Is there an alternative that I can use? Or is Response.Redirect the only option I have?
我希望尽可能保持与旧应用程序相同的行为，因为 Server.Transfer和Response.Redirect 。
I want to maintain the same behaviour as the old application as much as possible since there is a difference in between Server.Transfer and Response.Redirect.
推荐答案
我会根据您的情况为您提供一些选择：
I see some options for you, depending on your case:
- 返回其他视图：因此， HTML。请参见Muqeet Khan的答案
- 返回同一控制器的另一种方法：这还允许执行其他操作的业务逻辑。只需编写类似
return MyOtherAction（ foo， bar）之类的东西。 - 返回另一个控制器的操作：请参阅Ron C的答案。由于此解决方案忽略了整个中间件，该中间件包含了大约90％的ASP.NET Core逻辑（如安全性，Cookie，压缩，...等），因此我对该解决方案感到有点麻烦。 ）。
- 路由样式中间件：添加类似于路由功能的中间件。在这种情况下，您需要在此处评估决策逻辑。
- 最后重新运行中间件堆栈：本质上，您需要重新运行很大一部分堆栈。我相信有可能，但尚未找到解决方案。我看过Damian Edwards（ASP.NET Core的PM）的演讲，他托管了没有使用Kestrel / TCPIP的ASP.NET Core，仅用于在浏览器中本地呈现HTML。那你可以做。但这是一个很大的负担。
- Returning another View: So just the HTML. See answer of Muqeet Khan
- Returning another method of the same controller: This allows also the execution of the business logic of the other action. Just write something like
return MyOtherAction("foo", "bar"). - Returning an action of another controller: See the answer of Ron C. I am a bit in troubles with this solution since it omits the whole middleware which contains like 90% of the logic of ASP.NET Core (like security, cookies, compression, ...).
- Routing style middleware: Adding a middleware similar to what routing does. In this case your decision logic needs to be evaluated there.
- Late re-running of the middleware stack: You essentially need to re-run a big part of the stack. I believe it is possible, but have not seen a solution yet. I have seen a presentation of Damian Edwards (PM for ASP.NET Core) where he hosted ASP.NET Core without Kestrel/TCPIP usage just for rendering HTML locally in a browser. That you could do. But that is a lot of overload.
一个忠告：转移已死；）。这样的差异是ASP.NET Core存在和性能提高的原因。这对迁移不利，但对整个平台有利。
A word of advice: Transfer is dead ;). Differences like that is the reason for ASP.NET Core existence and performance improvements. That is bad for migration but good for the overall platform.
这篇关于ASP.NET Core中Server.Transfer的替代的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
