What about the next statement afeter response.redirect andserver.transfer?

[lander]

I've seen many people have written code like this:

response.redirect();
return;

or

server.transfer();
return;

I doubt whether the statement "return;" will be hit? I think it's
redundant, isn't it?

 

[Mark Rae [MVP]]

I doubt whether the statement "return;" will be hit? I think it's
redundant, isn't it?

No.

 

[George Ter-Saakov]

You right.
return will never bit hit in this case.

But I still always put it for clarity

George.

 

[Mark Rae [MVP]]

You are right.
return will never bit hit in this case.

That's incorrect...

protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (this == that)
{
Response.Redirect("mypage.aspx", false);
//return;
}

if (this != that)
{
// this *will* run if the above return is not unremmed...
}
}

 

[George Ter-Saakov]

Yes, there is a second parameter which will change default behavior.

But default behavior would terminate the execution.

So in
Response.Redirect("mynewpage.aspx")
return;

"return" is unnecessary

George.

 

[Mark Rae [MVP]]

Yes, there is a second parameter which will change default behavior.

But default behavior would terminate the execution.

Yes, that's true, but that would raise a
System.Threading.ThreadAbortException...

 

[bruce barker]

thats generally what you want.

overwise you need to override the render event, set a flag that a redirect
was done, then cancel the render (and maybe prerender). you may need to also
override the event firing logic, as you probably don't want to raise events
after a redirect.

if you don't do this, all the page processing happens, and html is
downloaded to the browser, but ignored because of the redirect header.

-- bruce (sqlwork.com)

 

[lander]

Yes, that's true, but that would raise a
System.Threading.ThreadAbortException...

--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVPhttp://www.markrae.net- Òþ²Ø±»ÒýÓÃÎÄ×Ö -

- ÏÔʾÒýÓõÄÎÄ×Ö -

Hi mark, would you pls explain *why* to us? Thanks really.