Is it possible to get ContentId and ContentTypeId from a URL?

Apis.Get<Telligent.Evolution.Extensibility.Api.Version1.IUrl>().ParsePageContext(url) will return a list of the items in Context for a page.  However, the returned objects won't tell you what the "Content" for the page is, you will need to work out some logic to figure this out.  We typically use this method when we know what we are looking for (what user is in context for this url).  It is not used anywhere to generically determine what content is the content for this page.

One thing to look out for when working with ContextItems is Relationship.  For instance, if you pass a wiki page url to this method the returning ContextItems will often contain 2 wiki pages (the page and its parent).  The parent having a relationship equal to "Parent".

Quick idea of the logic that may be needed to work out the "Content" of the page:

var pageContext = Apis.Get<Telligent.Evolution.Extensibility.Api.Version1.IUrl>().ParsePageContext(url);
if (pageContext != null)
{
    if (pageContext.ApplicationTypeId != null)
    {
        var items = pageContext.ContextItems.Find(a => a.ApplicationTypeId == pageContext.ApplicationTypeId && a.ContentTypeId != pageContext.ApplicationTypeId);
        if (items != null)
        {
            //if 1 item its probably your page content
            //if multiple items it is probably the one with empty relationship
        }
        else  //there was no content for the specific application, so maybe on an application level page
        {
            items = pageContext.ContextItems.Find(a => a.ApplicationTypeId == pageContext.ApplicationTypeId && a.ContentTypeId == pageContext.ApplicationTypeId);
            if (items != null)
            {
                //if 1 item your are likely on an application page 
            }
        }
        //etc
    }
    else if (pageContext.ContainerTypeId != null) 
    {
        //etc
    }
}

That worked.  I have to supply a type (e.g. "Page", "ForumThread", etc.) to filter the context items, but that's fine.

Thanks for your help!

I can vouch for this method.. we're using this to good effect across a number of our customisations & it works well.