On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Mykola <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ben, thanks a lot for reply, > > I suspected that it is something about uniqueness of the name of the > route, > but I think that it was a good feature we heavily used in our project. > Why not treat name of the route as alias and do the same as for > unnamed routes - find the most suitable one. It was so in 1.9, and I > think we were not the ones who used this. And it makes our migration > to 0.9.7 Pylons a real pain.
The point of a named route is to guarantee which one gets chosen. Routes 1.9 had complicated rules that made it hard to predict which route would prevail, and that caused hard-to-diagnose bugs in applications. I had the opposite problem than you did: I would name routes and then try to generate them, and I would end up with some other route due to minimization or variable matching. That made the name useless and misleading, and there was no way to generate solely by name when you wanted to. That's why it was changed. -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
