Hello, have you tested performance impact on application. Do you assume some noticeable slowdown when using routes?
david On 7 srp, 18:26, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:03 AM, mdipierro wrote: > > > Thanks to Jonathan Lundell we have an experimental version in trunk of > > app level routes. > > To understand how it works read routes.example.py and comments in the > > file gluon/rewrite.py > > > If you test it please report your findings here. > > *Very* experimental, mostly not tested. > > I'll describe some of the changes here. > > 1. If you don't explicitly invoke any of the new features, routing should > behave identically to before. If you see any different, please let us know > asap. > > 2. You can now have a routes.py in the top level folder of an application, > and it will be used *instead* of the base routes.py. However, it's not enough > to simply have the file there; you must inform the routing logic about it. > > 3. The way you inform the routing logic is with a new element in the base > routes.py: routes_app. routes_app is processed identically to routes_in, but > the output must be an app name (or nothing). routes_app is processed at the > beginning of a request. If it produces an app name, and that app has an > app-specific routes.py (that is, applications/appname/routes.py), then that > routes.py is used instead of the base routes.py. > > 4. In an unrelated change, there are three other new elements in routes.py: > > default_application = "init" > default_controller = "default" > default_function = "index" > > Note that default_application doesn't interact with app-specfic routing, > since it's used after rewrite has taken place. default_controller and > default_function should normally be used only in an app-specific routes.py, > because, in the base routes.py, they will apply to all apps *without* an > app-specific routes.py. That would probably lead to confusion when running > admin or examples; at the very least their defaults would break. > > 5. As usual, I suggest that when you edit routes.example.py to generate a new > routes.py, you also edit the doctest at the end, and use it to verify that > you're getting what you expect. To run the doctest, just do "python > routes.py". > > Note also that I have a more far-reaching change in mind, but don't have it > worked out yet. The new version will move away from regexes (though the old > logic will remain in place for compatibility). It's supposed to be more > flexible and much easier to use, and also handle URL encoding & decoding > better. But this change should help in the meantime.
