Ohh sure, I don't know what I was thinking on. I have to see if we'll lose other capabilities with the change becouse currently I'm not sure.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:15 AM, ed_ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David, > > I don't think that's right. > > sortedMap keeps the map ordered by the natural ordering of its keys. The > key > of the targets map is a Route--I don't think this enhancement/change should > affect the nature of the Route class, do you? > > Ed > > > David Calavera wrote: > > > > I think it makes more sense that the Map was a sortedMap, thus the > > entrySet > > will be a sortedSet and I suppose your problem will be solved. > > > > If you are agree I can change it. > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:35 AM, ed_ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> James, > >> > >> I'm not very familiar with Abdera, but I have browsed the source a bit > >> after > >> hitting the same limitation that Jim reported, while working on Shindig. > >> I > >> *think* that a simple change in RouteManager could alleviate some (and > >> for > >> me, I think, all) of the limitation. > >> > >> When resolving a route, Rails walks through its routes in the order that > >> they are defined. RouteManager walks through the targets.entrySet, which > >> is > >> unordered. If RouteManager kept a targets List<> instead of a targets > >> Map<>, > >> it could walk through the routes in order. (There would need to be a new > >> class defined, to hold both the Route and TargetType, but it would be > >> very > >> simple.) > >> > >> To work around the limitation Jim describes, a client would define a > >> /base/:collection/:entry route before the /base/:collection route. > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Ed > >> > >> > >> James M Snell wrote: > >> > > >> > Ruby matching can span segments if a default value for the missing > >> > variables is provided. We, however, don't have default values for our > >> > variables. It would make sense for us to tighten up the matching > >> rules. > >> > > >> > - James > >> > > >> > Jim Ancona wrote: > >> >> I have run into some problems with my Routes matching unexpectedly. > >> >> Before filing a bug, I thought I'd ask for feedback on whether the > >> >> current behavior is correct. > >> >> > >> >> The current algorithm attempts to match the non-variable parts of the > >> >> pattern, setting the variable to whatever is in between. > >> >> > >> >> So the pattern "/base/:collection/" matches both "/base/test/" and > >> >> "/base/test/123/". In the second case, the value of the collection > >> >> variable is "test/123". In my opinion, not allowing matches to span > >> URI > >> >> segments would be less prone to unintuitive results. > >> >> > >> >> FWIW, a quick glance at some docs on Ruby Routes seems to indicate > >> that > >> >> they do not span URI path segments. > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> Jim > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://www.nabble.com/Route-matching-too-liberal--tp15348853p17993519.html > >> Sent from the abdera-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > David Calavera > > http://www.thinkincode.net > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Route-matching-too-liberal--tp15348853p17994070.html > Sent from the abdera-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- David Calavera http://www.thinkincode.net
