I'm pretty sure that with the old routing I mapped everything to *.html (as opposed to *.castle) and then had a rule like:
/index.html /home/index.html That allowed my homepage to look like http://www.mysite.com, i.e. with no /index.html or /home/index.html when you hit the homepage. In that case I definitely didn't map "*". On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jimmy Shimizu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't you need to map * as handler in order to use site-root routing? > > Colin Ramsay wrote: >> Additionally on this, if I change my application extension to .aspx >> then the Default.aspx will trigger a " Url smaller than 2 tokens" >> exception. I guess this is because of the following code in >> OnBeginRequest in RoutingModuleEx: >> >> if (File.Exists(request.PhysicalPath)) >> { >> return; // Possibly requesting a static file, so we skip routing >> altogether >> } >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Colin Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'm still working on this documentation as I think it's useful to have >>> something down even if it's going to change in future. I'm looking at >>> the default rule: >>> >>> rules.Add( >>> new PatternRoute("/") >>> .DefaultForController().Is("staticcontent") >>> .DefaultForAction().Is("home") >>> ); >>> >>> Obviously this should match thusly: >>> >>> [TestMethod] >>> public void Root() >>> { >>> RoutingRules.Register(RoutingModuleEx.Engine); >>> >>> RouteMatch match = RoutingModuleEx.Engine.FindMatch("/", >>> CreateGetContext()); >>> >>> Assert.IsNotNull(match); >>> Assert.AreEqual("staticcontent", match.Parameters["controller"]); >>> Assert.AreEqual("home", match.Parameters["action"]); >>> } >>> >>> The trouble is that when I'm running through IIS I cannot get this to >>> match. If I do not have a Default.aspx placeholder, I get a directory >>> listing. If I have a Default.aspx then I see the contents of >>> Default.aspx. Incidentally the extension i'm using for my application >>> is .ashx at the moment. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Colin Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it would definitely be of benefit to try and state the problem >>>> to provide context to the rest of the documentation, if nothing else, >>>> and if that helps define a better solution then that's a good side >>>> benefit. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:44 PM, hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Given the fact that I've been writing specs for the last 3 months, I >>>>> wonder if we should try this for the routing stuff. >>>>> >>>>> The spec - at least on devdiv - is a definition of behavior, public >>>>> API, consideration and issues. It is also used to create the >>>>> documentation. Would that lead to waterfalling a supposedly agile >>>>> environment? I'm not sure. What I know is that I've spent many hours >>>>> writing and refactoring the routing stuff without a clear and >>>>> agreeable definition of the whole problem space. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Colin Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> hammett >>>>> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
