On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:09:03AM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
absolute_url_path - is usable with VHM, but still containment only.
virtual_url_path - is usable with VHM, but still containment only.
Again, what do both of these do?
virtual_url_path replaces absolute_url(relative=1) which IIRC is going to be deprecated because everybody hates the inherent absurdity of it.
but WHAT DOES IT DO?! ;-)
http://collector.zope.org/Zope/809 Or just look at Traversable.py in 2.7.x.
Maybe... How's the API reference code coming? ;-)
The code is not coming, currently. I'm doing an ad-hoc cleanup of the API reference for the 2.7/2.8 Zope Book first.
request/URLx - close, but no cigar: leaves out traverse_subpath elements.
Really?
Yes, really.
Should it?
Good question! Why the heck doesn't it? Seems counterintuitive to me.
Indeed. Can we propose this as a change for 2.8? Would sir care to open a collector issue? ;-)
OK. I'll see if i can work up a patch too. Digging into HTTPRequest.get at the moment...
...which doesn't matter one iota to Zope, but does illustrate my point. This kind of URL building is very problem specific, with each person wanting something slightly different. Adding more methodz to cope, or one method with a myriad of options doesn't feel like the right way to go about it to me...
It also illustrates *my* point: This particular use case is very simply stated, I do not agree that it's an edge case, and current solutions are much too subtle and non-obvious. If we leave it to people to re-discover this solution, or document a particular idiom such as yours (where?), the hapless admin who comes across this code for the first time is *still* going to have to look at it and say "what the heck does that do?", and if he doesn't find the particular bit of proposed documentation, there is a good chance he could accidentally break it in for some case. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com