Re: [PATCH try 2] gitweb: Add option to put a trailing slash on pathinfo-style project URLs

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 13:47 -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote:

>>>> @@ -845,7 +850,12 @@ sub href (%) {
>>>>  		$href =~ s,/$,,;
>>>>  
>>>>  		# Then add the project name, if present
>>>> -		$href .= "/".esc_url($params{'project'}) if defined $params{'project'};
>>>> +		my $proj_href = undef;
>>>> +		if (defined $params{'project'}) {
>>>> +			$href .= "/".esc_url($params{'project'});
>>>> +			# Save for trailing-slash check below.
>>>> +			$proj_href = $href;
>>>> +		}
>>>>  		delete $params{'project'};
>>>>  
>>>>  		# since we destructively absorb parameters, we keep this
>>>> @@ -903,6 +913,10 @@ sub href (%) {
>>>>  			$href .= $known_snapshot_formats{$fmt}{'suffix'};
>>>>  			delete $params{'snapshot_format'};
>>>>  		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		# If requested in the configuration, add a trailing slash to a URL that
>>>> +		# has nothing appended after the project path.
>>>> +		$href .= '/' if ($use_pathinfo[1] && defined $proj_href && $href eq $proj_href);
>>>>  	}
>>> 
>>> The check _feels_ inefficient.  I think (but feel free to disagree) that
>>> it would be better to use something like $project_pathinfo, set it
>>> when adding project as pathinfo, and unset if we add anything else as
>>> pathinfo.
>> 
>> I considered doing that, but I decided that not having to litter the
>> preceding code with manipulation of $project_pathinfo outweighed
>> whatever negligible performance difference there might be.
> 
> On the other hand, with having boolean variable named for example
> $trailing_slash or $add_trailing_slash, you can set it to appropriate
> value by default (should project list URL: http://example.com/ have
> trailing slash), and at [almost] each 'delete $params{<param>}' either
> set it to true, or set it to false. This way it would be easy to
> extend to have trailing slash also for example for OPML link
> http://example.com/opml/ or not have it and use http://example.com/opml
> 
> I think it is not only more efficient, but is also more flexible.
> Admittedly it is also more complicated...

On the other hand you don't need such flexibility, so perhaps simpler
code (or at least less changes) outweights this issue...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland