> > Not sure why so defensive.
Sorry, not meaning to be defensive, just trying to explain how it works. > All I'm suggesting is that there is > precedent in simpler routing schemes: consider django's (or Rails'), > for instance. So far, you've only made two suggestions, one of which is already the case, and the other of which would not be desirable and would break backward compatibility. Beyond those two suggestions, do you have other specific ideas (that wouldn't break backward compatibility) for how routing should work differently? Note, unlike Django, web2py does not require any explicit routing at all for standard cases -- it has default routing based on the application, controller, and function names. Beyond the default behavior, the next fairly simple step is to use the parameter-based rewrite system<http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/4#Parameter-based-system>, which makes it very easy to handle fairly common rewrite cases without having to resort to regexes. Only in the more complex cases do you need to adopt the pattern-based rewrite system<http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/4#Pattern-based-system>, and even in that case you probably don't really need app-specific routes. Perhaps we need to focus on improving the documentation and examples. The routes auto-discovery and contingencies, in this case, and in my > opinion, are not intuitive and against the core python concept of explicit > over implicit. http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/1#Principles I think web2py is a little more into convention over configuration. Anthony
