In general I think the routes.py should be in applicaitons//
On Mar 15, 3:28 pm, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:54 PM, mdipierro wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not at all. app level routes would be feasible and easy to implement.
> > I just did not have the time. The issue is not implementing
On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:54 PM, mdipierro wrote:
> Not at all. app level routes would be feasible and easy to implement.
> I just did not have the time. The issue is not implementing as much as
> designing the syntax.
>
> Should the main routes delegate? Should it be explicit? Should it be
> implic
Not at all. app level routes would be feasible and easy to implement.
I just did not have the time. The issue is not implementing as much as
designing the syntax.
Should the main routes delegate? Should it be explicit? Should it be
implicit? (I think implicit)
That we have the issue of setting ca
I was just raising the point that if we are going to have routes for
static files, why not have routes for the app while we are at it?
At least this way, the routes would be more "portable" so that routes
can then be packed along with your app?
Or would this be trying to open a can of worms that
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
--/Maslow's hammer/
On 3/15/2010 11:42 AM, Thadeus Burgess wrote:
Ahah! One step closer to app level routes!
-Thadeus
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM, mdipierro wrote:
You raise a good point. There is no way to do it be
shold this problem be solved as part of an app-level routes? I was
looking at it as different.
On Mar 15, 11:42 am, Thadeus Burgess wrote:
> Ahah! One step closer to app level routes!
>
> -Thadeus
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> > You raise a good point. There is no way
On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Thadeus Burgess wrote:
> Ahah! One step closer to app level routes!
Hmm, that's a good thought. I'm looking at the overall handling of URL parsing
and routing, and hadn't been thinking about this.
So what I'm thinking now is that the global routing would be only the
Ahah! One step closer to app level routes!
-Thadeus
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM, mdipierro wrote:
> You raise a good point. There is no way to do it because I assume on a
> production system this should be done by the web server.
> Perhaps we should have something like routes.static.py
You raise a good point. There is no way to do it because I assume on a
production system this should be done by the web server.
Perhaps we should have something like routes.static.py in the static
folder with cache configuration options for the files in there.
On Mar 15, 11:00 am, "mr.freeze" wro
Yes, static files. I am basically asking how to set the cache control
headers for static files. Models don't get processed so I'm not sure
where to do it without hacking main.py. Am I thinking about this
wrong?
On Mar 15, 10:37 am, mdipierro wrote:
> Static files? In the end it is the browser
Static files? In the end it is the browser that caches them. web2py
does not ask the browser to cache them.
You can try serve them using a custom controller. In this case web2py
would do (under the hood):
response.headers['Content-Type'] =
contenttype('.'+request.extension)
11 matches
Mail list logo
