Conor,
I am just now experimenting with ceon_uri_mapping_3.8.0, I would like to let you know that it seems to be very useful and I would like to thank you for all of your efforts.
I have a quick question.
I am rewriting my site (actually starting from scratch and reinstalling only the add ons I really want).
I have SSU links that I am redirecting as being historical links.
It seems that either format in the Ceon mapping table works. I think from what I have read it should be the second choice, but I was wanting to hear it from you.
Either way the link redirects correctly.
'/old url', 1, 0, 'product_info', '', 26076, '', '301', '2010-11-08 09:05:23'
'/old url', 1, 0, 'product_info', NULL, NULL, 'address of alternate url', '301', '2010-11-08 09:05:23'
I pulled this as sql (and changed the url's) just so it would be easier, ignore the unnecessary syntax please.
Could you advise if it makes any difference if I use the associated_db_id vs the alternate_uri for a historical redirect?
Using the associated_db_id is easier, if there is no reason it is incorrect.
Also on a different matter does it matter if the (NULL) is actually showing, or if it is just blank. Is there ever a reason the mapping will work incorrectly if it does not actually say null?
Thanks for your time.
SP
Bookmarks