On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 04:09 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
> Just a heads up.
> 
> BFG currently uses Routes (http://routes.groovie.org) to do URL pattern 
> matching.
> 
> While fleshing out URL generation and matching support for BFG "url 
> dispatch", 
> I've come to the conclusion that it's probably a better long-term strategy to 
> just write some simple regex generation stuff (maybe stolen from bobo) than 
> to 
> continue to use Routes to match and generate URLs.  The set of assumptions 
> that 
> Routes makes isn't entirely appropriate for BFG, and I've found the 
> workarounds 
> to those assumptions make the code fragile and complicated.
> 
> I'll try to not change things very much with respect to the actual pattern 
> matching syntax, but I'm probably not going to release a 1.0 until BFG 
> doesn't 
> have a Routes dependency.  The syntax may need to change a bit too, to ease 
> implementation.
> 

Just a thought from the sidelines, is there not also an advantage from a
marketing perspective to sharing some of the pylons components? Does
routes really need to be ditched to do what you want?

For me personally (admittedly a totally new user to zope/repoze) it's a
negative to have bfg moving to share fewer components with Pylons, as
one of the main attractions to me of bfg is it's complementary nature to
pylons. And conversely, one of the turn offs for me re Django as the
rampant not-invented-here aspect.

my 2 cents to be taken with much salt,
iain


_______________________________________________
Repoze-dev mailing list
Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org
http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev

Reply via email to