Hi Vladimir, Yup, I think we are saying the same things. See below:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Vladimir Ivanov <[email protected]>wrote: > Just to clarify things about 'tags' page: when user makes request to > '/tag/tagname' it is then rewritten to '/info_view/tag' URL (with request > paramter 'tagname' added to it) which corresponds to /info_view/tag.html > template (it is then processed with specific snippet TagDisplay.display() > ). > Am I right? > Yes, I think that is what is happening currently. And it is what I was originally thinking in order to accomplish what I suggested in the proposal. Now I think the other option (below) is better. > Now I clearly see one possibility: place tag.html template under 'views' > folder (common folder for all templates) and then redirect user with > rewrite > rule from '/tag/tagname' URL to '/views/tag' URL. > > I haven't completely understood another approach (or most probably my > english leaves a lot to be desired ;s) ) that you've mentioned: "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)" > > Did you mean place tag.html template under root folder and then dispense > WITHOUT rewrite rules? > Exactly. If we can do it without rewrite rules I suspect that would be better. I keep seeing David telling people not to use rewrite rules on the Lift list, so I guess I am hesitant to use them now if I can avoid it. I'm worried I'll need to ask a question on the list and then have to show that I'm using rewrite rules :-) Now, for the collections (/tags, /conversations, /users) we probably will need a rewrite rule or something to make the path element available to the snippet. And for users we will need to rewrite in some way in order to have a snippet at /users and also display users at /users/USERNAME. But I think we can figure out how this works when we get there. Ethan > > Vladimir > > > 2011/4/28 Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Vladimir Ivanov >
