Mailing-List: contact abdera-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jasnell@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.183 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=suL6Zhc8PxKNjkTLjsCJt2skbW3qYWH44D+7cq8tJC5lyX8ZOWYplMNJbqBuOaLWHp
         L9ZDOKYum9aDq4dhRbtGIpRnH8Ny21VYUO9eqpqPeyjD7OYCfuJpT0RpZ6VlckzZpUlC
         I9kdrYDZgL4/0az5xT3ERgSe/Blcmip3+mfuE=
Message-ID: <485A71C6.4000707@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:48:38 -0700
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Route matching too liberal?
References: <47ABCD89.10400@anconafamily.com> <47ABD8B8.4070705@gmail.com>
 <17993519.post@talk.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <17993519.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Works for me. Would you be interested in writing up a patch and 
submitting it to jira?  If not, I could work up the change but it may 
take a few days longer as I'm trying disparately to get caught up on 
some day job stuff.

- James

ed_ruder wrote:
> James,
> 
> I'm not very familiar with Abdera, but I have browsed the source a bit after
> hitting the same limitation that Jim reported, while working on Shindig. I
> *think* that a simple change in RouteManager could alleviate some (and for
> me, I think, all) of the limitation.
> 
> When resolving a route, Rails walks through its routes in the order that
> they are defined. RouteManager walks through the targets.entrySet, which is
> unordered. If RouteManager kept a targets List<> instead of a targets Map<>,
> it could walk through the routes in order. (There would need to be a new
> class defined, to hold both the Route and TargetType, but it would be very
> simple.)
> 
> To work around the limitation Jim describes, a client would define a
> /base/:collection/:entry route before the /base/:collection route.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> James M Snell wrote:
>> Ruby matching can span segments if a default value for the missing 
>> variables is provided.  We, however, don't have default values for our 
>> variables.  It would make sense for us to tighten up the matching rules.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> Jim Ancona wrote:
>>> I have run into some problems with my Routes matching unexpectedly. 
>>> Before filing a bug, I thought I'd ask for feedback on whether the 
>>> current behavior is correct.
>>>
>>> The current algorithm attempts to match the non-variable parts of the 
>>> pattern, setting the variable to whatever is in between.
>>>
>>> So the pattern "/base/:collection/" matches both "/base/test/" and 
>>> "/base/test/123/". In the second case, the value of the collection 
>>> variable is "test/123". In my opinion, not allowing matches to span URI 
>>> segments would be less prone to unintuitive results.
>>>
>>> FWIW, a quick glance at some docs on Ruby Routes seems to indicate that 
>>> they do not span URI path segments.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>