current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

Stack Exchange
tour help
careers 2.0
Take the 2-minute tour ×
Stack Overflow is a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 9 down vote favorite

I received a prototype application built with Asp.Net MVC4. It is currently replacing the default controller factory with a custom one using NInject, ServiceLocator and all.

The problem is that by replacing the default controller factory, the requests to JS files are being treated as if it was a legit request for a controller and an action.

So, looking at the default template create by Visual Studio, route configuration looks like this:

public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes)
{
    routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}");

    routes.MapRoute(
        name: "Default",
        url: "{controller}/{action}/{id}",
        defaults: new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id =   UrlParameter.Optional }
    );
}

After looking that, I'm asking myself: How come a request to "/Scripts/jquery.js" does not get interpreted by Asp.Net MVC? I mean, why doesn't it think "Script" is a controller and "jquery.js" is an action?

Because the project works if I disable the controller factory override, I can only assume that the default factory is the responsible for that kind of check. And that would mean that a "/Scripts/jquery.js" are indeed passed to the controller factory which is something I didn't really know.

Could anyone shed some light on that?

What kind of treatment should one do when overriding the controller factory to avoid such problems?

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 13 down vote

It's not because of how MVC handles the request to jquery.js it's because of the way IIS handles the request to jquery.js. IIS assumes that resources such as .js, .jpg, etc, are all static resources, and thus doesn't need to pass them through the ASP.NET engine. In order to to prevent this from occurring you can add a line to the web.config for a path that you want IIS to leave alone. 

<system.webserver>
    <handlers>
    <add name="scripts" path="/Scripts/*" verb="GET" type="System.Web.Handlers.TransferRequestHandler" preCondition="integratedMode,runtimeVersionv4.0"/>
    </handlers>
</system.webserver>

Adding something like that should allow your JS files to be served via ASP.NET and not directly through IIS.

share|improve this answer
    
+1, Thanks for remembering me about the handlers piece of web.config and the way it is set. I found the solution for my problem. Check my answer. Again, thanks for helping. –  user1677919 Jun 5 '13 at 20:39
    
No problem. I ran across almost this exact problem the other day. I had completely forgotten about how files are handled. –  ThaBigGuy Jun 6 '13 at 15:26
add comment
up vote 5 down vote accepted

After a little bit more of research I found the following quote from Steven Sanderson's book:

However, the routing system still does check the file system to see if an incoming URL happens to match a file or disk, and if so, routing ignores the request (bypassing any route entries that the URL might also match) so that the file will be served directly. This is very convenient for static files, such as images, CSS, and JavaScript files. You can keep them in your project (e.g., in your /Content or /Script folders), and then reference and serve them directly, just as if you were not using routing at all. Since the file genuinely exists on disk, that takes priority over your routing configuration.

If, instead, you want your routing configuration to take priority over files on disk, you can set the RouteCollection’s RouteExistingFiles property to true. (It’s false by default.)

That was something very interesting to learn and led me to the actual problem. A much simpler one. As it happened, the pertinent scripts were not present on the folder. At least not the ones with the exact same version requested on the view. That was the responsible for Asp.Net MVC thinking it was a controller/action request.

Reference: http://forums.asp.net/t/1536510.aspx/1

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.