On Nov 24, 7:39 pm, Mike Orr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Mike Burrows (asplake) > > 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.
Ah - I just meant that I have no intention to model the formats produced by the application. > 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? Probably just produce a human-readable report, like "rake routes" does for vanilla Rails and "rake described_routes" does but better ;-) > 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? See above. Described_routes works with the existing routing so there's still only one representation to maintain, and I wouldn't wish to limit frameworks to what described_routes can express so I don't push it as an input format. > >> 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. >From a brief encounter in the paster shell it's an easy enough structure to explore. Rail's documentation here isn't great either. > > 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. : ) You ok with the 404s then? > -- > Mike Orr <[email protected]> Regards, Mike -- 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.
