Thanks for clarifications Mike Looks like we really misused named routes, will try to fix it, seems like it will be the right way.
Regards, Mykola On Apr 23, 8:24 am, Mike Orr <sluggos...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Mykola <mpaliye...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ben, thanks a lot for reply, > > > I suspected that it is something about uniqueness of the name of the > > route, > > but I think that it was a good feature we heavily used in our project. > > Why not treat name of the route as alias and do the same as for > > unnamed routes - find the most suitable one. It was so in 1.9, and I > > think we were not the ones who used this. And it makes our migration > > to 0.9.7 Pylons a real pain. > > The point of a named route is to guarantee which one gets chosen. > Routes 1.9 had complicated rules that made it hard to predict which > route would prevail, and that caused hard-to-diagnose bugs in > applications. > > I had the opposite problem than you did: I would name routes and then > try to generate them, and I would end up with some other route due to > minimization or variable matching. That made the name useless and > misleading, and there was no way to generate solely by name when you > wanted to. That's why it was changed. > > -- > Mike Orr <sluggos...@gmail.com> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
