On Jan 16, 2008 11:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What are the reasons to support 'url_for(controller="foo",
> > action="bar")'? Besides to avoid rewriting old routes? Is there some
> > independent advantage to it? While it's sometimes a hassle to name a
> > lot of little unimportant routes, and 'm.connect("main", "main",
> > controller="main")' gets a bit redundant, the cleanliness of always
> > using named routes is a big advantage.
>
> Some of us have written quite a few instances of
> url_for(controller="foo",
> action="bar") and are running production apps that have large numbers
> of
> controllers and actions.
We have a few ideas for supporting existing apps, which we'll test
before changing the Pylons dependency. One idea is to have users
adjust their Python path (easy_install.pth in a virtual environment).
Another is to release a Routes1 package identical to the existing
Routes.
Pylons only uses the match dict in the WSGI environment. So as long
as your middleware.py, routes, and url_for calls are all from the same
version, Pylons shouldn't care.
--
Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
