On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jason Davies <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also prefer _render. How about doing the analogous to what we do for JSON >> docs and views, i.e. something like: >> >> /db/_design/foo/_render/renderfun/docid >> /db/_design/foo/_render/renderfun/_view/viewname >> > > I do believe this works, but I'm not convinced it is more elegant that > having one name for rendering views and one name for rendering > documents. For one thing, it doesn't take advantage of the > [httpd_design_handlers] extension point, and for another, it's just > plain long! > > Not totally against it, but to me it's like making an origami > paper-crane, and then adding an elephant leg to it. >
That said, let me be clear that I'm flexible and if a consensus emerges that something that doesn't fit the httpd_design_handlers extension point is preferred, I'm happy to help change it to that. Another disadvantage to the deeper URLs required by stacking the doc and view rendering namespaces is that links from rendered views to rendered docs start to look like "../../../docrenderfun/docid" Chris -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
