maybe the same mapper can handle /mount/point by default or /mount/point/more/specific if some query parameter is present....
-igor On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.kn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I wouldn't mind changing the name to getPrecedenceScore(), but > that's just naming issue. > Two request mappers can handle same URL, i.e. one is for /mount/point > and one is for /mount/point/more/specific. How would you decide which > one gets to handle the request? > > -Matej > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Eelco Hillenius > <eelco.hillen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Looks like an overall improvement. Definitively reduces the spaghetti >> a bit. Not crazy about getCompatibilityScore though. I understand it's >> purpose and maybe it's the best solution, but it looks like a crutch. >> >> Eelco >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> ahha, here is something we need to change. we should have a >>> mountedmapper that allows one to mount a requesthandler rather then a >>> page. the user should not go as far as having to implement >>> requestablepage, there are a lot of extraneous methods there if all >>> you want to do is handle the request yourself. >>> >>> -igor >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Stoch <daniel.st...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The great thing for me is that I'll be able to mounting something that >>>> just implements RequestablePage interface, not only a Page class >>>> descendants (if I've read this code correctly :)). It allows to handle >>>> navigation more flexible and it allows to avoid creating hard to >>>> maintain page class hierarchies. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel >>>> >>> >> >
