Namespace.. nice idea. ;-) As of symfony 1.2 we can put routes who belong to a "object" (for example "article") into a sfObjectRouteCollection [1] or such a class. So this can be seen as kind of "namespace".
In fact the new admin generator uses this concept to provide/use routes for all the actions of an admin module. regards, Matthias [1] http://trac.symfony-project.org/browser/branches/1.2/lib/routing/sfObjectRouteCollection.class.php On 25 Nov., 12:57, Fabian Spillner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your idea is very great – it makes sense only on huge projects with a > lot of routing definitions. > > One important thing: it should be good readable and easy to understand > the configuration rules. > > Ex.: > > routing.yml > > article_base: > url: /article > class: sfGotoRoute > options: { route: article } > > routing/article.yml: > > article_show: > url: /:id/:slug > param: { module: article, action: show } > class: sfPropelRoute > options: { model: Article, type: object } > > article_add: > url: /add > ... > > It sounds really good, but the problem is overview of defined route > names. > I dont want to check in every route file if there is a route with same > name defined. > > The problem could be solved by given namespace like: > > url_for('@article:show?id=123&slug=foobar'); > > And in my routing/article.yml: > > show: > url: ... > > add: > url: ... > > in routing.yml: > > routing.yml > > article: > url: /article > class: sfGotoRoute > options: { route: article } > > Now it seems not be clean and compatible with actual routing syntax: > what´s the namespace, what´s not! > > The cleanest way is to define namespaces in routing.yml like: > > sf_route_namespaces: > article: > url: /article > route: article > ... > > my_route: > url: / > ... > > It needs more change to get the chance to be a part of symfony > core :-) > > On Nov 24, 11:41 am, Olivier Poitrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > About legibility, I don't advise to use sfJump directly, it's just an > > underlaying tool for sfPatternSubRouting to do the grouping job. If > > you use the splitted files feature of sfPatternSubRouting, I would > > tend to say your big routing file will be more maintainable. > > > About the perf, I've no numbers yet. I developed those patches the day > > I posted the mail last week, thus it's not yet tested in production. > > It's more a request for comment than a stable and finalized code :) > > > On 24 nov. 08, at 07:47, naholyr wrote: > > > > But in your case, you may have watched the times displayed in the > > > debug bar for the routing part. What was your gain ? > > > > About the readability ? It's kinda smart having used the system for > > > those "utility" rules (especially the sfRewrite one, and the > > > subrouting idea) but is the routing.yml still maintainable and > > > parsable by humans ? With all that jumps and gotos :s > > > > On Nov 21, 8:29 am, Olivier Poitrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 21 nov. 08, at 14:11, Kiril Angov wrote: > > > > > > I want to ask first, is the performance gain noticeable? > > > > > It completely depends on your routing configuration actually. If you > > > > have only a few routes with very simple patterns, I would say no. If > > > > you have one hundred routes with some very complex patterns, the > > > > performance gain can be high. > > > > > -- > > > > Olivier Poitrey > > > -- > > Olivier Poitrey --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" 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/symfony-devs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
