please don't get rid of url_for(controller='foo', action='bar') I use
that all the time, and although I know that url_for('named route') does
look more elegant, if you get rid of the former behavior, then we're
left having to name all of our controller/actions pairs. To me this
looks like just an extra step, and leaves me with haveing to remember
what "edit_foobar" really refers to, when controller='foo, action='edit'
is very explicit, I know exactly what it is revering to no guessing and
I don't have to look in an other file to make sure I'm pointing to the
right spot.
Jose
Mike Orr wrote:
> A few of us have been kicking around ideas for improving Routes. I've
> got an API proposal at
> http://wiki.pylonshq.com/display/routes/Proposed+Changes
>
> I'd like some feedback from those who use Routes heavily on whether
> you use the less-common features like 'filter', 'function', '_static',
> 'url_for(controller="foo")'... whether the proposed changes would
> totally screw up your application. They would require you to change
> some of your routes and url_for's, but hopefully wth the effect of
> making Routes simpler and more deterministic.
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
