Re^3: Good way to redirect to a "members only" section of website

" the two page includes the login page...."
Actually, if I read your explanation as you intended, that's exactly what I'm urging you to avoid.

My preferred schema is:

Create a default, static "index.html (.asp. .net, whatever)" FOR EVERY VISITOR which includes a link to "login.cgi"
Have login.cgi's (separate) action script (call it "login_test.cgi") check the uname and pw against whatever you're using for your "approved members" list
...if successful,
call "application_page1.cgi"
} else {
...call "page2.html" which announces "login failed" or similar (as in my initial reply) and provides a link to the default ("index.html" or whatever).

You can, without dangerously deviatating from my schema, have login_test.cgi's failure action send a user who entered the wrong credentials directly back to index.html without any explanation, but that's unkind to the maker of an innocent error.

Please excuse my assumptions about your intent; I've been known to err (but with good intent) in that area.

Comment on Re^3: Good way to redirect to a "members only" section of website Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Good way to redirect to a "members only" section of website by yagna (Novice) on Feb 02, 2013 at 18:19 UTC
Hi ww, Thanks for the clarification. I am using a model similar to the ajax login form as dettailed here Since this uses ajax, the login error message is displayed in the same page. My question is about how you "call" another cgi script? That is my problem. How on successful authentication, I redirect(call) another cgi script/ html page ? ...if successful, call "application_page1.cgi" } else { ...call "page2.html"	[reply]
Re^5: Good way to redirect to a "members only" section of website by ww (Archbishop) on Feb 02, 2013 at 19:32 UTC
Your link to the IBM page is illuminating... and a pretty good rundown for others who come later, looking for answers to some of the same things bothering you. ++ However, see my next reply for what I was talking about: the reply indentation gets heavy and the rendered-reply-box gets too narrow at this level of response.	[reply]