On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Mike Burrows (asplake) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes it uses standard Rails routes, and no it doesn't address output > formats (nor will it).
I'm not sure what this means. XML, JSON, YAML, and text are all output formats, which it does. Yes there's a small module to map the Rails > routes to described_routes' internal model and another to add Rake > tasks (analagous to adding "paste described_routes" or something). What would a "paster described_routes" do? Add a bunch of routes and their various controllers? I think I would rather see a case where the original route definitions were in a generic format (and described_routes may be as good a format as any), and a ``map.import_()`` method that imports them into the route map. That way the routes are defined in only one place, and the application is automatically updated (or broken) whenever routes change. "paster described_routes" could create the controllers, but if it inserts into the route map you'd have problems when you change the routes later: because how would you keep routing.py and the original route definitions in sync? >> Pylons does not have a routemap pretty printer. That might be worth adding. > > I do plan to do this, just a question of time - maybe my next plane > trip! A Python version of the underlying data structure exists > already so it shouldn't be a huge amount of work. That would be great. The data structures in Mapper and Route are rather opaque and underdocumented though. We're considering a more transparent structure for a future version of Routes. > On a related subject, I'm a little concerned that Pylons has the > choice of constraining methods via Routes (potentially resulting in > 404s which seems wrong to me) or via the @restrict decorator. IIRC > there's the third choice of a @dispatch decorator but I haven't tried > that (maybe I should - I'm currently using different URLs for my POST > actions). Yes, there are three ways to do it. I don't know when each one was added to Pylons or why, but I suspect it's because people wanted TurboGears-style decorators. I'am not sure whether restricting the methods via Routes or the decorators is better, although I lean toward Routes to keep it all in one place. The security-obsessed would use both. : ) -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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.
