TYPO3 Core

correction:
i made a mistake with the arguments - when i delete noCache="1" the viewhelper works correctly with all arguments. Sorry.

There is the problem left, that noCache="1" results in a messed up URL.

The route enhancer config:

routeEnhancers:
    NoCacheHandling:
        type: Simple
        routePath: '/{no_cache}'
        requirements:
            no_cache: '.*'
        aspects:
            no_cache:
                type: StaticValueMapper
                map:
                    nc: 1

Peter Linzenkirchner wrote:

There is the problem left, that noCache="1" results in a messed up URL.

Hey Peter,

I actually wrote a blog post about not using no_cache. As it actually builds up the same content with a different URL, you will have duplicated content for SEO reasons, so I would refrain for putting this in the route path.

Hi Benni,

thanks for your answer! I needed it for URLs to AJAX calls, so there was no risk of duplicate urls. But i really needed the content without cache because i needed life data. So i worked around with config.no_cache=1 - no big deal with ajax calls.

But i think the viewhelper should not deliver a destroyed url when noCache="1" is added. I understand that this attribute normally is not usefull anymore, but then it should be ignored by the viewhelper or the viewhelper should throw an exception. It was a bit difficult to find the reason why the urls were so messy ... :-)

Peter Linzenkirchner wrote:

Hi Benni,

thanks for your answer! I needed it for URLs to AJAX calls, so there was no risk of duplicate urls. But i really needed the content without cache because i needed life data. So i worked around with config.no_cache=1 - no big deal with ajax calls.

But i think the viewhelper should not deliver a destroyed url when noCache="1" is added. I understand that this attribute normally is not usefull anymore, but then it should be ignored by the viewhelper or the viewhelper should throw an exception. It was a bit difficult to find the reason why the urls were so messy ... :-)

Hey Peter,

yes. the underlying issue is that two RouteEnhancer were added and only the no_cache route enhancer worked as it messed up additional URLs.