It's always a bad idea to mix different types of urls without having
clearly defined separate prefixes for each.
Basically it's like having a global namespace, and even worse is that
you don't get ambiguity errors in case
of overlaps, you get one url superseding the other (this also applies
to
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote:
It's always a bad idea to mix different types of urls without having
clearly defined separate prefixes for each.
Basically it's like having a global namespace, and even worse is that
you don't get ambiguity errors in case
of
I use /static for all my static file, except maybe robots and favicon
which cant be moved.
As for StaticURLParser, using that as the first choice in the Cascade
is wasteful cause
it means pylons will do a file lookup for every request (bad
performance) in addition to the
fact that filenames may
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Tycon adie...@gmail.com wrote:
I use /static for all my static file, except maybe robots and favicon
which cant be moved.
As for StaticURLParser, using that as the first choice in the Cascade
is wasteful cause
it means pylons will do a file lookup for every
Hey thank for repeating what I said... when using a web server to
serve the static files
you should get rid of Cascade and staticURLParser. But the underlying
question remains,
how do you distinguish between static files and urls for which we
defined dynamic controller actions ?
One (bad) idea,
I'm planning on moving my users' profile pages to:
example.com/:username
but there has been some discussion amongst fellow developers that this
might cause problems. I would have this route and subsequent routes as
the last ones defined in my array of routes defenitions so any static
routes
Previously ED209 wrote:
I'm planning on moving my users' profile pages to:
example.com/:username
but there has been some discussion amongst fellow developers that this
might cause problems. I would have this route and subsequent routes as
the last ones defined in my array of routes
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
Previously ED209 wrote:
I'm planning on moving my users' profile pages to:
example.com/:username
but there has been some discussion amongst fellow developers that this
might cause problems. I would have this
Thanks for the replys. The only issues I can think of are:
# Create a 404 type page for anyone going to a non-existing /:username
# validate choice of /:username against routes
# validation should also check an array of banned/legacy/reserved
routes
# if a user creates a :username which I later
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 1:57 PM, ED209 edleades...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the replys. The only issues I can think of are:
# Create a 404 type page for anyone going to a non-existing /:username
# validate choice of /:username against routes
# validation should also check an array of
You could go old-school: example.com/~username
example.com/users/username isn't too bad, nor is Google's one-
character approach (example.com/u/username).
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
11 matches
Mail list logo
