ASP.NET: Links are often better than Postbacks
Craig mentions a reason to avoid links, and Eron follows up by wondering postback or links -- well here's my take:
I prefer links instead of postbacks. First, they work for all browsers, and small devices and phones are becoming more common. Next, the race conditions with postback/viewstate are very common and quite serious. I can't count the number of times I've approved the wrong post on the ASP.NET forums due to this very type of issue. If the ASP.NET forums can't get it right, do you really think your common developers can? This is very common among any high-use ASP.NET apps, although no one ever seems to acknowledge it. And its so easy to fix by using links, which also can allow you to avoid using response.redirect, let alone server.transfer which is terrible in the state it leaves the browser history. Speaking of history, links also allow you to set favorites, and also allow your users to use the back button. Hmmm, so links work in all browsers, give better consistency, allow setting of favorites, don't confuse history, and support the back button . . . Its just amazing to me that so many people have just bought into the postback model for so much. Yes, its great for events when you need them, but that doesn't make it a panacea for all things. And to the original issue -- I'd hardly call that a reason to avoid links -- that's just a reason to avoid stupid links, or at least unsecured stupid link!