You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 3, 2023. It is now read-only.
A major advantage of this would be that endpoint and function names would be a lot more descriptive (as well as avoiding multiple endpoints under the same name), though it would result in having to repeat the route name (I'm not so sure this is such as bad thing). What do people think of this?
Note - we can already do much the same thing with @blueprint.route(..., methods=['GET']), which would be how this would be implemented internally.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Considering modifying the way routing is done to be a bit clearer, and avoid some of the mess of class-based routes. It'd look a bit like this[1]:
instead of like this:
A major advantage of this would be that endpoint and function names would be a lot more descriptive (as well as avoiding multiple endpoints under the same name), though it would result in having to repeat the route name (I'm not so sure this is such as bad thing). What do people think of this?
@blueprint.route(..., methods=['GET'])
, which would be how this would be implemented internally.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: