That is true. I am in favor of including Graham's patch for now but I have a feeling there has to be a better solution.
On Sep 4, 10:12 am, Fran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 4, 1:49 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You are correct that the solution you proposed would work. My only > > concern is that some existing application do URL(app,controller, > > function) instead of URL(r=request,function). That is valid. When they > > try to deploy behind WSGI in a subfolder they will find the links > > break. I agree with you that they can change the URL(...) arguments > > but they are not supposed to. I like your fix but it would be nice if > > we could come up with a way that does not break any existing app. > > If the new method is made optional (as per one of Graham's > suggestions) & the docs on the enabling mention clearly that the > r=request format needs to be used to have this work, then this still > doesn't break backwards compatibility whilst allowing us to move > forward :) > > F > > (I'm fortunate - may app always uses r=request as that's the style > I've seen published in examples) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" 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/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
