Compare with path redirect

Hi,

Good point, it's not obvious at all. I know about those modules. The end result is the same, the difference with PathFinder is that you don't need to manage an ever-growing list of aliases and redirects.

Example, if you use Pathauto to generate node-alias based on node title, then every time you edit the node-title the alias will change. Pathauto can solve this by adding a new alias or redirect, but over time the list of aliases and redirects will grow (and grow...). PathFinder doesnt need to add anything.. old urls still work and they always will.

With Pathauto (etc.) if you accidentally delete a needed alias or redirect then old urls will stop working. So you have to be careful to never delete aliases/redirects. How do you remember which of them are still needed and which can be deleted?

In summary, the end-result with PathFinder is the same, but (IMHO) much cleaner and easier to manage. Plus, the short-url feature is useful in its own right.

Does that explain sufficiently? I'll add a doc page or update the project page accordingly.

Further clarification: PathFinder does not add aliases or redirects or anything - it doesn't need to because the information needed to identify the target content (node/123 or whatever) is packed into the short url, which never changes.

In other words, urls become:

www.example.com/SHORT-CODE/any-additional-info-for-seo-and-user-friendli...

The short-code (typically just three or four characters and/or digits) will never change under normal circumstances. The exception is if for some reason you change PathFinder's configuration for short-code generation. That would not not normally be necessary, but even so, that situation is catered for in the design.

So, in your alias table you only need to maintain currently required aliases - old ones can be safely deleted. The same for redirects (if you use redirect module etc.) - you don't need them, except for special purposes such as redirecting to another site, etc.

Updated issue summary.