Which way is better to use include - local address or remote url?

Question

When I include php, css, graphic files etc., I tend to prefer using a local address, as this is easier to work with on local development (eg '../gfx/logo.png').

Nevertheless, this can cause problems if the file that triggers the include request is loaded from different location. At that case a local address include won't work, and therefore in these kind of files I use remote url address (eg 'http://site.com/gfx/logo.png').

A disadvantage of using a full path ('/root/mysite/gfx/logo.png') being on a shared server, this path is a bit long, and repeating it for every include is kind of messing the code.

Which is the most efficient, elegant way?

ABC · Answer 1 · 2012-11-26T18:57:48.443

0

If you are having problems using relative urls just use the full url path i.e. http://example.com/images/test.png :) There is no need to include the server path (and this is more dangerous too!)

edited Nov 26 '12 at 18:57

answered Nov 26 '12 at 18:56

ABC

718
8
23

Since your URl was not meant to be a literal link for someone to click, I changed it to Code formatting. – Andrew Barber Nov 26 '12 at 18:57

score 0 · Accepted Answer · answered Nov 26 '12 at 19:05

0

you can try the '<%=VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/gfx/logo.png") %>' This helps me to test everything on my localhost as-well-as my QA server without worrying about changing the urls. hope it helps

answered Nov 26 '12 at 19:05

Scorpio

1,151
1
19
37

Which way is better to use include - local address or remote url?

2 Answers2