[ckan-dev] RFC: routes - named routes and redirects

Mon Sep 3 10:15:05 UTC 2012

Personally I think named routes are a nice way for people writing templates, or extensions to not have to know the internal implementation details of which method in which controller something is implemented.  

Agree that we should be deprecating /package for 2.0. Some of the others /users/ -> /user/ are just to maintain pretty urls, and as far as I can tell harmless. Aren;'t they?

Ross

On 3 Sep 2012, at 11:04, Toby Dacre wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I Think we should be a bit more consistent in our use of routes
> 
> named routes
> --------------------
> sometimes we use named routes eg
>     m.connect('storage_api', '/api/storage', action='index')
> 
> Sometimes not eg
>     m.connect('/feeds/group/{id}.atom', action='group')
> 
> personally I'd remove all named routes and just use the controller=.., action=.. approach
> 
> 
> redirects
> -------------
> 
> sometimes we do redirects like 
>     map.redirect('/users/{url:.*}', '/user/{url}')
> 
> Do we really want to encourage the use of multiple urls going to the same place - some such as
>     map.redirect('/package/{url:.*}', '/dataset/{url}')
> 
> are needed for backwards compatibility (but for how long?)- and in this case because the ckanclient was never updated but do we want to do this?  The users example above is really bad because /users/moo works but /users gives a 404
> 
> While I'd like to see these removed from routes how about as part of 2.0 I'm really keen we don't add more.  What do the rest of you think?
> 
> Toby
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev