Please mark the method protected then? The code the gentleman is using
implies that a default route addition is part of bootstrapping the rewrite
router. It is not based on your definition and it correctly should not be.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martel Valgoerad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: [fw-general] revision 1863 controller front
Kevin McArthur wrote:
Instead of an implicit ->addDefaultRoutes whould it not make more sense
to have the defaults enabled by... default..
But they are, Kevin. Look at the RewriteRouter's constructor - there is a
direct call to addDefaultRoutes.
and instead provide a removeDefaultRoutes() method for those who want to
remove the default functionality?
That's the main reason why I have introduced the removeRoute method
lately. But
removeDefaultRoutes is another nice touch so I will probably add with the
next
commit.
Im curious what the purpose of addDefaultRoute's very existance is.
I have moved the default route creation into its own method primarily to
clean the constructor and to make it more readable. And making it easier
to override the default routes if you choose to subclass the router.
Kevin McArthur
--
Michael Minicki aka Martel Valgoerad | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://aie.pl/martel.asc
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"The incompetent with nothing to do can still make a mess of it."
-- Laurence J. Peter
