On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Chris Rossi <ch...@archimedeanco.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
>> - If a "factory" is specified on a route, it will need to point at a
>> function that had the same call/response convention as a traversal
>> root factory. This will break code. "Context factories" accept
>> key/value pairs assumed to be items that matched in the URL match.
>> These would cease working, and would need to be rewritten as root
>> factories, which accept a WSGI environment.
> My gut feeling is this should be a show-stopper. Not having easy access to
> the match dict when doing routes just goes too far in terms of breaking
> expectations about how routes should work.
> That said, I think the goal of unifying the two methods is very compelling,
> so we should spend some more time thinking about how to accomplish this
> without breaking fundamental expectations with regards to url dispatch. The
> idea of performing a graph traversal starting at a context found by a routes
> match is particularly compelling and reason enough to pursue a unification.
> I'd just suggest thinking about it a little more before starting to move
> code around. I'll try and devote some brain cycles of my own to the
I guess the most stupidly straightforward solution might be something like:
def __call__(self, environ, **routes_match):
Replaces concepts of root factory used for traversal and context
factory used for routes, into a single concept. environ is the
WSGI environment, and the match dict from routes matching, if
applicable, is passed in as kw args.
Repoze-dev mailing list