Hey Vladimir, I thought this idea might be half-baked :-) Thanks for taking a look at it.
So, my thought was to do it like we do for the 'tags' page currently. But that uses a rewrite rule (your suggestion #3). Which makes me wonder why we wouldn't just put the templates where they are supposed to be and dispense with the rewrite rules completely (your suggestion #1). What do you think would be the best way? Cheers, Ethan On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Vladimir Ivanov <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Ethan! > > Sounds reasonable for me. I have one question: > > Take, for example, public page. It is defined in Boot.scala > as: Menu(Loc("public", List("info_view", "public")... and it correspondes > to > '/info_view/public.html' URL. > > You've proposed to change this URL to '/public'. How should it be mapped in > SiteMap: > > 1) Menu(Loc("public", List("public")... which correspondes to 'public.html' > template in root folder? > > 2) Menu(Loc("public", List("public", "some_template")... corresponding to > /public/some_template.html ? > > 3) Rewrite request so that when user asks for /public URL it will be > redirected to /views/public.html (where views is a single common folder for > all templates )? > > Sorry if I missed something in your inital explanation. > > Thanks, > Vladimir > > > 2011/4/28 Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> > > > Hi all, > > > > [Note, this has been sitting in draft format for forever. So I'm just > > cut-and-pasting it and throwing it out to everyone.] > > > > I've been doing a fair amount of work on the front-end templates lately > and > > I've noticed that the template and URL organization isn't currently very > > consistent. I think this has just happened over the last year or so as > > we've > > added and changed things without a view to consistency, but maybe I'm > > missing a greater organizational scheme here. If so, let me know :-) > > > > I'd like to propose making the following changes to the URL scheme: > > > > Current (mostly right, I think): > > > > / (index) > > /info_view/public > > /info_view/users > > /info_view/streams > > /info_view/contacts > > /user/USERNAME (remapped from info_view/user) > > /profile_view/edit > > /track_view/ > > /action_vew/ > > /auth_view/ > > /pools_view/ > > /conversation/CONVID (remapped from info_view/conversation) > > /tag/TAGNAME > > /logout > > /info_view/search?SEARCHQUERY > > > > /api (original api) > > /api2 (new api) > > /twitter (twitter api) > > > > > > Proposed: > > > > / (index) > > /public > > /users > > /users/USERNAME > > /streams > > /contacts (do we even need this any more?) > > /profile > > /tracks > > /actions > > /tokens > > /pools > > /conversations/CONVID > > /tags/TAGNAME > > /logout > > /search?SEARCHQUERY > > > > ... plus API stuff, which would not change. > > > > I'd also like to propose making the following change to template > > organization: > > > > Reorganize all the main templates under a single folder, so action_view, > > auth_view, pools_view, profile_view, and track_view folders would go > away. > > We would change the name of the info_view folder to something like > "views", > > though this would never show up in the URL scheme, so we could stick with > > "info_view". > > > > Move signup.html into the new "views" folder. > > > > My questions for everyone: > > > > Does this all sound OK? > > Any suggestions how it could be improved or anything I'm missing that is > a > > reason we shouldn't do this? > > If we do it, what release should it go in to? > > If necessary, we can set up rewrite rules so that old bookmarks still > work. > > Does anyone think this would be necessary? > > > > If everyone is more or less OK with it, I'll create a ticket and then get > > to > > work on it as time allows. > > > > Thanks, > > Ethan > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Vladimir Ivanov >
