@wangjq4214 Why you changed Route with RouteInfo ?

@wangjq4214 Why you changed Route with RouteInfo ?

I think the method returned by this function is probably more commonly used, so a simpler name is needed. Changing the previous name is not quite right, I will change it back, do you have any idea about the name of this type?

@wangjq4214 We can use Router interface for this method

Router interface is not compatible for this stuff. It has path param in methods

Router interface is not compatible for this stuff. It has path param in methods

That's true. You are right.

I think we should change Route struct name

Maybe we can add interface named RegisterI or something else and return it instead of *Register. Wdym @wangjq4214

Actually RouteFunc might be a good name to seperate from Route

@wangjq4214 thx for the PR

can you create some test with route which have a deeper level

so for example 3 level

so we can be sure that there can be scaled infinitely

@efectn thx