MVC 6 Attribute Routing using the new "[controller]/[action]" Tokens and Areas

Question

OK, I know the easiest way to use Attribute Routing in MVC 6 is:

public class Startup
{
    public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
    {
        services.AddMvc();
    }

    public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app)
    {
        app.UseMvc();
    }
}

And here is the controller code using the new Tokens (without Areas):

[Route("[controller]/[action]")]
public class HomeController : Controller
{
}

And here is the controller code using the new Tokens (with Areas):

[Area("MyArea")]
[Route("[controller]/[action]")]
public class HomeController : Controller
{
}

Questions:

1. Is this how MS wants you to code your controllers using Areas and Tokens?
2. Or is there a cleaner way?
3. Could they have somehow created an [area] Token?

Lastly, I know I can play this game, but isn't the 1st convention-based approach - app.UseMvc() - the simplest?

public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app)
{
    app.UseMvc(routes =>
    {
        routes.MapRoute(
            name: "areaRoute",
            template: "{area:exists}/{controller=Home}/{action=Index}/{id?}"
        );
    });
}

Answer 1

Microsoft gives you two options, each with own pros and cons. You should decide which one is better based on your context/needs.

Convention based routing

Pros:

• It is simpler, instead of defining everything on an per-action level you just decide once and for all how your urls will looks like .
• Perfect when your urls exactly match controller/action names.
• If you want to change and url you need change the name of class/method.
• Perfect for projects with clean and predictable url structure.
• Perfect for quickly prototyping a new project.
• Slightly easier for developers -> by knowing an url you know in which controller/action lies the functionality

Cons:

• You loose little bit of control

Attribute-based routing

Pros:

• Gives you total control over how the url looks like, for example for SEO purposes.
• If you want to change an url you do not need to change the name of class/method.
• Perfect when your urls do not match controller and action names or you want to hand-craft them (i.e customer wants that).
• Perfect for maintaining backward compatibility, when you have an legacy project and want to have compatible url structure.

Cons:

• Requires little bit more work, as you need to define the routes in your code. Please note that adding an attribute to a class/method is a matter of seconds.

How to decide which one to use:

• If you have/expect to have very few routes.MapRoute() calls -> use convention routing as its simpler

• If you have/expect to have lots of routes.MapRoute() calls -> use attribute routing