> Indeed, in Routes 2.0 the behavior you expect will be the default, I
> blogged more about other Routes 2.0 and 1.X features:
> http://groovie.org/articles/2007/08/29/routes-planning-and-the-road-to-routes-2-0
Cool!
Apart from clearing name route confusion, I noticed you plan to solve
another problem I just hit (smooth redirect for legacy urls).
One sidenote for consideration: maybe in some cases it would make
sense to use alternative (to connect) method names? For example,
m.static_url('google_search', 'http://www.google.com/search')
seems to me to be more aestethic than the current
m.connect('google_search', 'http://www.google.com/search', _static=True)
...
Another tiny detail: I feel that it is a bit unclear how should
be the internal routes to static resources handled. I mean cases
like generating url to image, stylesheet, javascript - where
SCRIPT_NAME should be added to the generated url, but the route
is not expected to be used during url resolution. Maybe this is
just the documentation issue, but maybe it could also benefit
from some explicit syntax...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
