> What are the reasons to support 'url_for(controller="foo",
> action="bar")'? Besides to avoid rewriting old routes? Is there some
> independent advantage to it? While it's sometimes a hassle to name a
> lot of little unimportant routes, and 'm.connect("main", "main",
> controller="main")' gets a bit redundant, the cleanliness of always
> using named routes is a big advantage.
> --
> Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Some of us have written quite a few instances of
url_for(controller="foo",
action="bar") and are running production apps that have large numbers
of
controllers and actions. I can't be very specific about the details,
but do
understand that choices like these lead to (in our case) thousands of
lines
of code changing, and in the more general case of the Routes 2 spec,
a fairly large change in the way that we use Routes, with little
perceived
benefit. "a lot of little unimportant routes" is many days of work
between the
adding the new named routes, updating the url_for and redirect_to
calls,
and the subsequent testing effort to make sure nothing got fat
fingered.
We don't want to get in the way of progress. But please don't
completely
discount that there are real live businesses with large code bases
running
on Pylons nowadays and there should be at least a _little_ weight
given
to supporting existing apps.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
