There is an inconsistency here, and I am getting to the root of the problem.
PotatoBob wrote:
ViewRenerer is inconsisteny with the default routes and possibly custom routes because instead of rendering 'actionName.phtml' which would be consistent with the name of the action it renders the action specified in the url.
Technically, ViewRenderer maintains a convention of dash-seperated script names (for the action). Personally, I used to use under_score, but since have switched to the dashed-name convention as it is ultimately cleaner, and agrees with other conventions outside of file names itself (google urls, and css naming conventions).
An example of this would be valid urls /foo/fooBar and /foo/foo_bar which would route to the same action in controller foo and action fooBarAction(). The problem here is with ViewRenderer, it will use the action supplied in the url for the name of the view script. So /foo/fooBar would render fooBar.phtml while /foo/foo_bar would render 'foo_bar.phtml' this is a problem because it would throw a 'cannot find view script' exception on a valid url from the router's point of view.
There is a bug here.. basically if an action can be dispatched, then there should be only one logical name for a view script based on whatever convention is enforced at the ViewRenderer layer.
Some may argue that this doesn't matter, but VR should be consistent with the rest of the framework. A route that is valid should be translated no matter the view script name.
Routes are apples, View/Controller integration is oranges. I can define routes that having nothing to do with action names in the url..
actionName.phtml or something.
Personally, I am not a fan of camelCase file names. I do like under_score, but dashed-names for me has emerged as a favorite for a number of reasons.
-ralph
