On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:11:35 GMT, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:34:54 GMT, Dejan Lekic wrote:

Is it me, or get() is a really confusing method. We do not get anything, instead we set with it...

I'd say it's just as confusing as put(), post() and all the others. However, it's very convenient in such a place where usually many calls are made in sequence. I'm usually not a fan of abbreviations of this or other kinds, but here I think it's OK because it is very commonly used and very easy to remember - but maybe that's tainted by the fact that I know it from other frameworks. At least nobody has complained about this before (but of course that is not a valid argument, just an indication that the situation may not be that bad).

The good news is that it's planned to add UDA support to URLRouter, so that the code would look similar to this: 

@method(HTTPMethod.GET) @path("/")
void showHomepage(HTTPServerRequest req, HTTPServerResponse)
{
	// ...
}

void main()
{
	// ...
	router.addRoute!showHomepage();
}

More to type and higher cognitive load (IMO), but better encapsulation and unified handling between URLRouter, registerRestInterface or registerFormInterface.

But apart from that I'm struggling with finding a better naming scheme:

  • matchGetRequest(): descriptive but far too much to type
  • matchGet(): still confusing (maybe not as much), but also longer to type
  • GET(): arguable less confusing and still concise, but completely goes against the code conventions
  • matchGET(): not confusing, more to type - probably the best candidate, but it also adds a lot of redundant text for a sequence of many routes

I've used @(route.get("/path")) to be more in sync with the current behavior.