add export mode support

[jonmifsud]

Allowing multiple modes for a single page, convenient for reports which are visible in multiple formats eg HTML & CSV and avoids a lot of duplication and attaching of datasources.

[nitriques]

Symphony should always be written with a capital S. ;)

[nitriques]

Why is the export.part mandatory ? Would it be enough to happen .type at the end of the url ?

I had this working some time ago... But it required some changes to the .htaccess rewrite rule... Is this why would made it that way ?

[jonmifsud]

I certainly found it more convenient than adding a new page for each
export. My use case involved a URL with an existing query string for
filtering, and just wanted to re-use the same exact stuff so it didn't
bother me much. Though you have a point, htaccess would be neater than a
URL parameter. In regards to using the .type notagion one can always add
an htaccess rule to send the .type as an export url parameter. Maybe we
can provide these rules within the documentation?

As for using the export.type int the page types. I thought it was
required so as not to override the original functionality which transformed
a url into an output format. Having just .csv would make the page send
CSV headers anyway, which would break backwards compatibility.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 at 16:34 Nicolas Brassard notifications@github.com
wrote:

Why is the export.part mandatory ? Would it be enough to happen .type at
the end of the url ?

I had this working some time ago... But it required some changes to the
.htaccess rewrite rule... Is this why would made it that way ?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7 (comment)
.

[nitriques]

Ok great points, thanks for the explanation.

I would use "multiple." instead of export (which may be confusing).

[michael-e]

I would use "multiple." instead of export (which may be confusing).

Sounds much better to me as well.

[jonmifsud]

Agreed, any other changes / suggestions?

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 at 17:23 michael-e notifications@github.com wrote:

I would use "multiple." instead of export (which may be confusing).

Sounds much better to me as well.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7 (comment)
.

[nitriques]

I do not think so ;) Adding a rewrite rule example might be a bad idea after all... Just check my commit comments !

[jonmifsud]

@nitriques (1 month later..) it was only that one comment to capitalise Symphony in the docs right? Nothing else that I missed.

[nitriques]

I would use "multiple." instead of export (which may be confusing).

This is still no implemented...