On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:25 PM, Thadeus Burgess wrote: > Where is the documentation on how to use it?
I sent an email on the subject, and there are comments in routes.example.py. Tomorrow I'll try to add some info to the book in time for Massimo's deadline. Hang on just a minute and I'll try to find the messsage ... a minute passes ... here we are: 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". There's also a patch pending that logs all rewrite operations. MUCH too verbose for production work, but could be useful in diagnosing problems with routes.py. (I think there's a problem with logging in general, though, so some more changes may be necessary.) It's largely untested, but I'll try to respond quickly to bug reports.
