[Twisted-web] Re: some questions about twisted.web

[David Bolen]

Jack Moffitt <jack at chesspark.com> writes:

> I think it's fine to support both approaches.  I think my original
> complaint was actually worded that way.  The issue is that there may
> not be a path from root to a child.  Ie, /some/path/to/proxy exists,
> but /some/path doesn't.  It takes some jiggering to set that up right
> now, because you have to make dummy nodes along the path.  Which
> works, but is not as optimal for this use case.

Oh, one follow-on to my last response.  While I've been referring to
getChild while talking about the traversal, technically its
getChildWithDefault that is being used with standard Resource
instances.

This gives precedence to explicit child resource instances (added with
putChild), falling back to getChild if no matching static child has
been added.

So in terms of a custom mapping Resource, you could install this as
the Root of your site, implement the custom getChild mapping, and
still use putChild to install some static paths that didn't use the
new mapping.

In such a case, getChild would only be getting called if no static
children were found, so again, the fact that it was being called at
all would imply that you should fall back to your custom mapping.  The
one case you would probably have to check for would be a getChild
lookup for "", which should render the actual site root page contents,
unless you wanted to delegate that to some other resource by using
putChild with a path of "".

-- David