This looks pretty cool, and the pretty printer is very helpful! Again, thx for the blog post.
I'm just a little hesitant to move forward with adopting it in my app at the moment because if routes 2 comes up with something completely new/different, then I'll be depending on this new branch or migrating my routes later when routes 2 is available. I know api changes for a commonly used lib like routes should not be made lightly and require thinking time, but I sure would like to know which way it is headed. On Dec 22, 2:42 am, "Mike Burrows (asplake)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, couldn't resist... > > with mapper.collection( > 'myresources', > 'myresource', > collection_actions = ['index', 'new'], > member_actions = ['show', 'update']) as c: > c.link('new', name='create_resource', method='POST') > c.member.link('delete', method='POST') > > >>> print mapper > > myresources GET /myresources > new_myresource GET /myresources/new > myresource GET /myresources/{id} > update_myresource PUT /myresources/{id} > create_resource POST /myresources/new > delete_myresource POST /myresources/{id}/delete > > Alternatively you could model 'new' as a nested subresource but this > takes a couple more lines and probably not worth the bother here. > > Mike > > On Dec 21, 10:27 pm, Jonathan Vanasco <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 3:54 pm, Mike Orr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > def resource2(self, name, path, new=True, edit=True, delete=True): > > > > GET /myresource : view index > > > GET /myresource/new : new form > > > POST /myresource/new : new action > > > GET /myresource/1 : view record 1 > > > GET /myresource/1/edit : edit form > > > POST /myresource/1/edit : edit action > > > GET /myresource/1/delete : delete form > > > POST /myresource/1/delete : delete action > > > I don't like stuff like this, so I could care less. But... > > > If you're going this route, it might make sense to do canned > > conditions for the most likely implementations, like ned=True would > > set up new, edit and delete. > > > i've seen that in a few different settings. most notably the Amazon S3 > > implementation -- where that option really does clean up a lot of code > > and make it easier to work with. -- 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.
