1 |
Thanks to Alan and the others for the responses... |
2 |
|
3 |
The main problem is this project is being managed by a non-tech manager |
4 |
who apparently thinks they know a lot more than they do, and the Boss is |
5 |
technically challenged, so it is easy for someone to convince him of |
6 |
almost anything (like, he should delegate this to a non-tech person and |
7 |
not involve his one tech guy)... |
8 |
|
9 |
One reason he sometimes doesn't involve me until things get to this |
10 |
point is because I tend to be a 'wet blanket', ruining bright shiny |
11 |
sales pitches with injections of reality. You'd think he'd have learned |
12 |
by now. The last time, about 5 years ago, the person who managed the |
13 |
project (different person) didn't get ownership of the source code in |
14 |
the contract, so we didn't get all of the source files for the Flash |
15 |
junk they created, then when we wanted to make some changes to the text |
16 |
embedded in the Flash, I had to ask them for the source files, and |
17 |
they wanted a bunch of money. Unbelievable. |
18 |
|
19 |
We'll see how the dev(s) respond to my questions, but I may come back |
20 |
here with more info and more advice if I need it. |
21 |
|
22 |
Thanks again to all, it has been a big help! |
23 |
|
24 |
On 10/1/2015 7:58 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
25 |
> On 01/10/2015 13:35, Tanstaafl wrote: |
26 |
>> Thanks Alan (and everyone else), |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> One important follow-up below... |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> On 9/29/2015 8:28 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
31 |
>>> It would be wise to clarify with the devs exactly what it is they are |
32 |
>>> looking for. |
33 |
>> |
34 |
>> That is the purpose of my upcoming phone call with him. |
35 |
>> |
36 |
>>> And overall, in your shoes I would be firm, adamant and above all polite |
37 |
>>> and say that infrastructure changes go through you and you alone, and |
38 |
>>> must be vetted by you with full transparency. |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> That is what I've been doing so far, but I think the boss is getting |
41 |
>> close to just saying 'give it to them'... |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Depending on how senior you are in the place, as technical guy you have |
44 |
> a duty to perform diligence. Persist. |
45 |
> |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> But - no one has addressed my main question... |
48 |
>> |
49 |
>> I understand that 301 redirects are performed by web servers only, you |
50 |
>> can't really do these in DNS. However, some Managed DNS providers - |
51 |
>> DNSMadeEasy included - offer this ability as a service. DNSMadeEasy |
52 |
>> calls them 'http redirects', and the actual redirect is accomplished by |
53 |
>> one of their own web servers they have set up to handle these. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> Information is still sparse, so I'm having to fill in the blanks a lot. |
56 |
> Here's what I imagine is probably happening: |
57 |
> |
58 |
> The only useful thing you can get out of DNS for an HTTP request is an A |
59 |
> record for an IP address. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> Say you are example.com and do your own DNS; www.example.com is 1.2.3.4. |
62 |
> A SaaS provider can control your DNS and they set the TTL on that A |
63 |
> record very low so (like DynDNS does) they can point it at their web |
64 |
> servers. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> A request comes in for http://www.example.com/index.html, and your DNS |
67 |
> cache needs to query it. The provider's DNS returns 2.3.4.5 which is the |
68 |
> provider's front end web server. That web server figures out the address |
69 |
> is your's, and issues a 301 to the user, which takes them to the |
70 |
> production web server with the real site on it. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> Providers do this a lot so they can load balance web sites, redirect |
73 |
> users to local nearby web servers and other optimizations. The downside |
74 |
> is they need to control your DNS. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> Me, personally I would never allow that, not for the entire domain. I |
77 |
> would rather delegate the specific address they want to control |
78 |
> (www.example.com) and let them tweak that all day if they like. |
79 |
> |
80 |
>> Is it 'normal' to do these 301 redirects at the DNS level like that? I |
81 |
>> would think they should be using the current web server hosting the |
82 |
>> current site to start doing the redirects as they get the new landing |
83 |
>> pages done? |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Depends what their business model is. If they deliver the full service, |
86 |
> they'd have to do something like I described above for it to work. |
87 |
> |
88 |
> This is assuming the contractor is a full SaaS provider and not only a |
89 |
> web-site developement company |
90 |
> |
91 |
>> Apache does this using a .htaccess file (if I'm interpreting |
92 |
>> my googling responses correctly). |
93 |
> |
94 |
> An .htaccess file is nothing special, all it is is a config file that |
95 |
> can contain whatever directives are allowed in httpd.conf but applies |
96 |
> only to the directive .htaccess is in. Everything in .htaccess is a |
97 |
> valid directive that can go in httpd.conf, but not necessarily the other |
98 |
> way round. They are especially useful for shared hosting where you want |
99 |
> your customers to be able to tweak specific directives for their sites |
100 |
> and you can't give them access to httpd.conf and really can't be |
101 |
> bothered doing it for them for every requested change :-) |
102 |
> |
103 |
> So when google gives a result saying "do it in .htaccess", that's the |
104 |
> internetz being meaningless. What it really means is "configure apache |
105 |
> to do a redirect for URLs that look like so" |
106 |
> |
107 |
> |
108 |
>> And now that I worded it that way - how would they do that exactly? |
109 |
>> Would the proper method be to redirect it to a new test domain, ie: |
110 |
>> |
111 |
>> www.example.com/page1.htm >> www.new-example.com/newpage1.htm ? |
112 |
>> |
113 |
>> Or save the new page on the old server, then do: |
114 |
>> |
115 |
>> www.example.com/page1.htm >> www.example.com/newpage1.htm ? |
116 |
>> |
117 |
>> Now I'm confusing myself... |
118 |
> |
119 |
> |
120 |
> It can get confusing. Best to ask them directly what they intend to do. |
121 |
> We can presume all day and never figure it out. |
122 |
> |
123 |
> |