Hi,
I just want to add some sugar to the discussion:
Instead of
m.connect("foobar", vars) it was proposed: m.foobar(vars...)
One option could be:
m.routes.foobar(vars...)
=> adding a central var under which all named routes are accessible as
attributes
Alternativly:
m["foobar"] = routedef(vars...)
=> which would require a additional class which is used for
instantiation of the
routing definition (holding the vars)
=> access to the named routes in a way which shows that the mapper is a
kind of
data storage for routes
This approach would also allow to make something like:
myroute = m["google"]
myroute.url_for(vars...)
or shorter:
m["google"].url_for(vars...)
I would be happy to have a more predictable behaviour for routes
identification and
route generation.
I would be even more happier if routes 2 would consistently allow proper
subdomain
handling... ;-))
Just my 2cents,
Andrew
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-devel" 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-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
