|
|
|
|
|
by dorianj
4912 days ago
|
|
In the example URL you gave, the content of the URL (base64):
({:project-id "505a125e44ae42e05a750c97", :object-instance "2", :object-type "0", :device-id "1234"} {:project-id "505a125e44ae42e05a750c97", :object-instance "1", :object-type "0", :device-id "1234"} {:project-id "505a125e44ae42e05a750c97", :object-instance "0", :object-type "0", :device-id "1234"}) seems like it would be better stored on the server in redis or something (or, at least if leaving it in the URL, a more compact deduplicated format might be worthwhile) |
|
However the duplication overhead would only be really paying off with a large number of objects.
By the redis reference, I suppose you refer to a uniquely created key each time a user request a possible combination. Something like /short-url/abcd, where abcd would be a key matching {:project-id "505a125e44ae42e05a750c97"... ?
That's what I was thinking when talking about a shortening url scheme. It requires more work, but the final URL would indeed be more sexy.
Thank you for the input, I appreciate it!