I'm up for anything to reduce clutter - I like the suggestion, because it is cleaner and removes all those pesky "views".
Regarding the contacts page, what do you suggest as a replacement? Having some sort of a filter on the users page? D. On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Vladimir Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote: > Ethan, > > First of all, I think your proposal will really simplify template structure. > > 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? > > 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? > > 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 >
