Server-side support (part 2 of 2: api)#45
Conversation
Member
|
I would like to avoid a new method.. cant we reuse simply |
gpoitch
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
@GianlucaGuarini Good idea. Updated. |
Member
|
Much better @cognitom I guess we could merge this right? |
Member
|
@gdub22 great! Thank you. |
cognitom
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 27, 2015
Server-side support (part 2 of 2: api)
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a follow up to part 1 (#43) of server-side support. The api method to go to a route:
route(path)now works server-side.This adds a new API method:route.render(path)so your route handlers can be directly executed on the server. Alternatively, we could allow the existingroute.exec()to accept an optionalpathparameter, which I did in my first implementation (#19 (reverted))