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

[Toby Dacre]

On 3 September 2012 11:24, Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org> wrote:

> On an (I think) related note, I always find it slightly disturbing
> that the search page is not called /search but /dataset, which from a
> user point of view seems quite wrong, though it might make perfect
> sense for the code.
>
yeah I never understood that, to be honest it's search datasets rather than
search (everything)

>
> Mark
>
>
> On 3 September 2012 11:15, Ross Jones <ross.jones at okfn.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ckan-dev mailing list
> > ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Wainwright, CKAN Community Co-ordinator
> Open Knowledge Foundation http://okfn.org/
> CKAN on Twitter: @CKANproject
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-dev/attachments/20120903/bebb3baf/attachment-0001.html>