Open fardog opened 8 years ago
additional comment, this'd mean that we'll doing front-end routing; i'm gonna prefer history.pushstate routing to hash-routing, although we can do ether depending on which browsers we'd like to support (i'd rather support one or the other, not both)
doing history.pushstate routing will mean that we'll have to deliver the same page from the backend filled with the correct context for any of the pages that are used for admin; currently
i'd probably move these to more REST-like urls for the frontend, especially since we need to implement edit/delete (which is currently broken on master branch)
this is part of why an /api/v1/heads/head-slug/tentacle
might make sense; since these are re-usable components we could display a list of tentacles for a specific head on its edit/info page.
Would love to hear thoughts on how to achieve front-end routing; I've never grokked how to separate back-end from front-end routing without making the front end an entirely separate project (which might be the right answer?)
secretary and accountant are nice.
i wish there was a better solution for doing pushstate routing that didn't basically require duplicating routes front <-> back
currently we treat each of the configuration pages as discrete, with context being written into the page by the backend; preferably we'd be treating this as a single page app.
should work roughly as follows:
for these purposes, I'd like to see us centralize any pieces behind a distinct REST-ful set of routes, propose:
Each of these would speak JSON; i can define the format when/if we decide to implement.
I suppose i need to better understand the full organization of things to know if tentacles should actually be under /api/v1/heads/head-slug/tentacles, or if both endpoints should exist (all vs tentacles that just belong to a head).