Hi Vincent,
Here is the official structure of a generic URI:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
So, as we define patterns on the hierarchical part, the question mark is not
considered. To come back to your initial question, instead of defining:
attach("/accounts/[0-9]+$", new GetAccountHandler())
attach("/accounts?[.]+$", new SearchAccountHandler())
You could define:
attach("/accounts/[0-9]+$", new GetAccountHandler())
attach("/accounts$", new SearchAccountHandler())
Actually, even this should work as we select the route that matches the
largest percentage of characters in each pattern:
attach("/accounts/[0-9]", new GetAccountHandler())
attach("/accounts", new SearchAccountHandler())
Doesn't that solve your problem?
Best regards,
Jerome
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Vincent
> Envoyé : dimanche 5 novembre 2006 19:50
> À : [email protected]
> Objet : Re: Handlers for search urls
>
> Hi Jerome,
>
>
> > The choice of not exposing the query string and the
> fragment part of the
> > target resource URI was deliberate.
>
> The question is: is the question mark part of the query string?
>
> > The reason is that the query string is often composed of a
> sequence of
> > parameters ("key=value") that can appear in any order while
> keeping the same
> > semantics.
>
> Agreed. I wasn't trying to define a regexp on the request
> parameters, I was
> just interested in catching the question mark. I wanted to
> differentiate
> between '/accounts/123' and 'accounts?status=active'.
> It turns out that attach("/account/[0-9]+",..) and
> attach("/accounts[.]+",...)
> does the trick, but attach("/accounts?[.]+",...") would have
> been slightly more
> elegant.
>
> -Vincent.
>
