On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:57, Chris Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jason Davies
<ja...@jasondavies.com> 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"
Good points. I must say, having worked with the _list and _show names
for a while now, I don't think they're terrible and personally I've
just got used to them. They're actually slightly similar to Django's
list_detail generic views, which are called "object_list" and
"object_detail". Any other naming ideas from other projects? We
could change _show to _detail but that's an extra 2 characters (!) and
I don't think it's any better really.
--
Jason Davies
www.jasondavies.com
