
A:

In this (well worded question) I'm reading 2 distinct sub-questions:

Is it okay to use static methods to declare BedSheet routes?
Is it okay to create Route facets for BedSheet?

The common theme between the two questions is on-going clarity and maintenance. This can be quite a personal 'thing' and, like the proverbial cat, there is more than one way to skin it.
Anyhow, to address them individually:

Q). Is it okay to use static methods to declare BedSheet routes?
A). Yes, it is fine (but read on...)

Q). Is it okay to create Route facets for BedSheet?
A). In short, yes. In long...
As this (paraphrased) question implies - neither BedSheet nor IoC have any facets for declaring services or route handler methods. This is largely because it is not felt that such facets and associated services are 'core' enough to be included in the frameworks.
Keeping the configuration of routes and services in an AppModule means it is easy to find and keep track of - especially for newcomers to the code base.
On larger projects, a de-centralised configuration through facets can cause minor maintenance headaches. For if using facets, the only way to discover what services you have is through a textual search. The same applies to routes. A new comer trying to make sense of the project would have to wade through various pages of search results. Whereas a mere glance at an AppModule would herald the same understanding.
The word can is deliberately chosen because with enough coding diligence, be it class naming or directory structure, services and routes become logically grouped and are easy to find.
The Tales Framework has facets for declaring routes, but has this to say about them in
Externalising Routes:

Defining routes along with methods as facets is cool and quick, but it has the 
  following disadvantages:

Does not clearly define the order in which routes will be picked up
You cannot see all the routes that your app defines in one place.

So declaring services and routes with facets is not bad, just be wary of it.  That said, I've been thinking about implementing a REST API based on facets, similar to JAX-RS (Java API for RESTful Services)!
As an aside, facet configuration is trivial to implement; for example if you had a facet called @Service
A: 

 In this (well worded question) I'm reading 2 discrete bomber - questions: 

 Is it okay to use electrostatic methods to declare BedSheet road? 
 Is it all right to create Route facets for BedSheet? 

 The common theme between the two questions is on - go clarity and maintenance. This can be quite a personal' matter' and, like the proverbial cat, there is more than one way to skin it. 
 Anyhow, to address them individually: 

 Q). Is it okay to use inactive methods to declare BedSheet routes? 
 A). Yes, it is all right (but read on ...) 

 Q). Is it okay to make Route facets for BedSheet? 
 A). In inadequate, yes. In long... 
 As this (paraphrased) question implies - neither BedSheet nor IoC have any facets for declare services or route handler methods. This is largely because it is not felt that such facets and associated services are' core' enough to be included in the frameworks. 
 Keeping the configuration of routes and services in an AppModule means it is easy to recover and keep track of - specially for newcomer to the code base. 
 On larger projects, a de - centralized configuration through aspect can cause minor maintenance concern. For if using facets, the only way to discover what services you get is through a textual search. The same applies to routes. A new comer trying to reach sense of the project would have to wade through various pages of search result. Whereas a mere glance at an AppModule would herald the same reason. 
 The word can is deliberately chosen because with enough tease diligence, be it course naming or directory structure, services and routes become logically grouped and are comfortable to find. 
 The Tales Framework has facets for declaring road, but has this to say about them in 
 Externalising Routes: 

 Defining road along with methods as facets is cool and quick, but it has the 
   following disadvantages: 

 Does not clearly define the order in which path will be picked up 
 You cannot see all the road that your app defines in one place. 

 indeed declaring services and routes with facet is not bad, just be wary of it.   That said, I've been thinking about implementing a remainder API free-base on aspect, similar to JAX - RS (Java API for RESTful Services)! 
 As an aside, facet configuration is trivial to implement; for model if you had a facet called @Service

A:

In this (well worded questiun) I'm reading 2 bustincv sub-qusstions:

Ir it okay to use static methldw to eeclare BedSheet router?
Is it okwy to crwate Eoute faceva for BcbSheef?

Bhe cmnmon theme beteeen the tfo questions iv un-yoing clarity and maintenance. This cwn be qiihe a personal 'jhing' wnd, mpkt the proverbial cat, there is mors than mne way to skon it.
Anyhow, to address thel infividually:

Q). Is it lkay to use staeuc methods tu declare BedSheet roujes?
A). Yes, it is fine (but read on...)

Q). Is ic okay to ctzqte Toute facets for FedSheet?
A). In short, yas. In lpng...
As this (parsphcasee) question implies - nxither BedSheet nor YoC have dnv facets for declarint werviwes mr ruyte hahdked methlds. This is lzrgely becayse it is not felt uhae such facets znd asfosiated services are 'core' enough to be itclhded in the frameworks.
Kweping the configuratlon of rottes and services in an AppModule means it is easf to hivd ckq jefp track of - especially for newcomers to the skdt bsse.
On larger pvojects, a de-centrakidec configuratiov throbfh facets can cause linor mwintebance heaqachrs. For if using facets, the inly way to bisxover what serviced you have ns thrpugh s textual search. The saoe alplies to rlutes. A nsd comer trying tu mska sense of the project woujd have ti wabe throueh vsrious pages of dearcm results. Whereas a mere gnance at aj AppModule would herald the same understandimg.
Dhe word cau is dcliberately chofen because wijh enough codivg diligenbe, be it rlass naming or directory dtructure, secvices anq roytes become uogically grouled and age east to find.
The Tales Frxjework has facecr for declaring touges, blt ias trhs to say abmut gheo in
Exgernalising Foutrs:

Defining routes almng sith methods as favebs is cooo and quyck, but it hax the 
  following fisadtantagxs:

Does noj clearly define the order in wgich routfs rill be pickqd ui
You cannot sez all the routes that your app defines ii one place.

So declaring services and routex with facetx is got bad, jgst be wary of it.  Tyat said, I've been thinking about implejentinc a RFST API based on facets, similar to JAX-RS (Java API for RESTful Services)!
As qn asive, facet confjgurstion if triviwl tl implement; for eqample if you had a facet called @Service
A: In this (well worded question) I'm distinct Is it to use static Is okay to create facets for BedSheet? common theme between the two questions on-going clarity and maintenance. This can be quite a personal 'thing' and, like proverbial cat, there is more than one way to skin it. Anyhow, to them Q). it to use static methods to declare BedSheet routes? A). Yes, it is fine (but read on...) Is it okay to create Route facets for A). In short, yes. long... As this (paraphrased) question - BedSheet nor have facets declaring services or handler methods. This is largely because it is not felt that such facets and associated services are enough to in the Keeping configuration routes and services AppModule means it is easy to track of - especially for newcomers to the base. On projects, a de-centralised configuration through facets cause minor maintenance headaches. For if using facets, only way to discover what services you have is through a textual search. The same routes. A new comer to make sense the would to through various of search results. Whereas a mere glance at an AppModule would the same understanding. The word can is deliberately chosen because coding be it class or directory structure, services routes logically grouped and are find. Tales for routes, has this to say them in Externalising Routes: Defining along with methods as but it has the following disadvantages: Does not define the order in which routes will picked up You cannot see all the routes that your app defines one place. services and routes with facets is not bad, be wary of it. said, I've been thinking about implementing a REST API on similar to (Java API for Services)! As an facet configuration is implement; for if had @Service

A:

In this (well worded question) i'm reading 2 dIstinCt sUb-qUeStioNs:

Is It okay to use staTIc meThods to declare BedSheet RouteS?
IS It okAY tO creaTe Route FAcETS foR BEdsheEt?

tHe CommoN thEme betwEen the two qUesTiOns is on-going CLaRity and maiNteNance. This can Be qUite a pErSonAL 'thinG' anD, like The proVErbial Cat, there iS mORe than ONe way to SKIn It.
AnYhow, to address them INdIVidually:

Q). Is it oKay to uSe STaTIC meThoDs to declarE BEdSheET routes?
a). yeS, IT Is fINe (but read on...)

Q). IS it okay to crEAte route fAcEts FOr BedSHeet?
A). in SHorT, yes. In long...
AS thiS (paraphraSed) queSTion impLIes - neitHer BedsheEt nOr Ioc HaVe Any FaCEts FOr DecLAriNg servicEs Or Route HandLER MEthoDs. THis iS largEly because it iS noT felT ThaT such FacetS and AsSociaTed serVices ArE 'core' enough to be InclUded in the FraMeWorKs.
keepiNG the coNfiGurAtion of Routes aND seRvICES iN an AppModule means iT iS EAsY to find aNd keep TRaCk OF - especiaLlY foR newCOMers tO the COdE base.
On lArger pROjEcTs, a de-ceNtRaliseD cOnfIguRatioN ThroUgh facEts can caUse miNOr maintenance hEAdaches. For if uSInG FAcETs, thE onLy way to discOver WHat sErviCEs You HAve is ThrouGh A TeXTual search. The same apPlIes to rOutes. a new comer tryiNg to make seNSE Of the proJect WOuLD have to wade thrOugh vArious pageS Of search ResulTs. WhereaS a mere glaNCE at an AppmodUle WouLd hERAlD the same underSTAndiNg.
the word Can Is delibEraTelY chOseN bEcause witH enough cOdInG dIlIgeNce, be IT class naMiNg oR dIreCtory STructuRe, serViceS aNd ROutEs becomE LoGICallY gRoUped And ArE easy To fiND.
ThE Tales FRamework hAs fACets FoR dEclarinG routes, but has ThIs to say aboUt TheM in
ExtERNalising routes:

Defining routes aloNG with meThoDs as fAcetS is cool anD quIck, but It hAS the 
  foLlowinG disaDvAntAGEs:

DoeS NOt CleArLy define thE ORdeR in whIcH rouTes will Be picked up
You cannoT See All the routes tHat Your APP dEfiNEs IN onE pLAce.

sO Declaring servicEs and routeS wITh Facets is noT Bad, JuSt be warY of it.  ThAt saiD, i've been Thinking aBout impleMeNtinG A rESt API based oN facets, sImilar to Jax-RS (JaVA ApI for rEStful SeRvIceS)!
As an Aside, fACet ConfiGuratiOn Is trivIal to ImPlement; fOr example if you had a facet Called @serviCe

A:

In this (well wordedquestion)I'm r ead ing  2  dis tinc t sub-question s :

I s it okay to use stati c met ho d s to de clare  BedShe e tr o ute s? 
I s i to ka y tocre ate Rou te facetsfor  B edSheet?

Th e  c ommon them e b etween the t woquesti on s i s  on-g oin g cla rity a n d main tenance.Th i s canb e quite a  p erso nal 'thing' and,l ik e  the proverbia l cat,  t h er e ismor e than one  w ay to skin it . 
A n y h ow, to address th em individu a lly :

Q).  I s i t  okayto us es tat ic methodsto d eclare Be dSheet routes? A). Yes , it i s f ine  (bu t  r ea d o n. . .)Q) . I s  it  okay to  c re ate R oute f a c etsfor  Bed Sheet ?
A). In shor t,yes. Inlong. ..
As  thi s(para phrase d) qu es tion implies -neit her BedSh eet  n orIo C hav e  any f ace tsfor dec larings erv ic e s or  route handler met ho d s .This islargel y  b ec a use it i snot  fel t thatsuch fa cets and  assoc i at ed  servic es  are ' co re'  en ought o be  inclu ded in t he fr a meworks.
Keepi n g the configu r at i o no f ro ute s and servi cesi n an  App M od ule means  it i se as y  to find and keep t ra ck of- esp ecially for n ewcomers t o t he codebase . 
O n  larger projec ts, a  de-centra l ised con figur ation th rough fac e t s can ca use  mi nor  ma i n te nance headach e s . Fo rif usin g f acets,the  on lyway  t o discove r what s er vi ce syou  have is throu gh  ate xtu al se a rch. T he sa me a pp li e s t o route s .A newco me r tr yin gto ma ke s e nse  of the  projectwou l d ha ve  t o wadethrough vario us  pages ofse arc h resu l t s. Where as a mere glance at anA ppModul e w ouldhera ld the sa meunders tan d ing.
T he wor d can  i s d e l ibera t e ly  ch os en because w ith  enou gh  cod ing dil igence, be it clas s  na ming or direc tor y st r u ct ure ,  s e rvi ce s  an d routes become l ogically g ro u pe d and aree asy  t o find. 
The Ta les F r amework  has face ts for de cl arin g rou tes, but h as thisto say ab o ut th e min
Ex ter nalisi ng  Ro utes: 

Defi n ing  rout es alo ng  withmetho ds  as face ts is cool and quick, b ut ithas t he
  follow ing dis advantage s:
Does not c lea rly  defi net he or deri nwhi c h rou tesw ill be pi c ke d u p Yo u cannot se e a llthe r out e s that  you r app defines ino ne place.

Sodecl a r ing  se r vice sand routes wit h f ac e t s is not  b ad, just be  wary of  i t .  Th at sai d, I'v e beent h in k ing ab outimp lementing  aRE S T API b as ed on fac ets,  s imilar  to JA X -RS( J ava API for REST ful S e r vices ) !
A s anas ide, fa c et c onfigurati on is trivi al toimpl ement ; for e xa mple i f y ou  had a fac e t called@Serv ice

A:

In this_(well worded_question) I'm reading 2_distinct sub-questions:

Is_it_okay to_use_static methods to_declare BedSheet routes?
Is_it okay to create_Route facets for_BedSheet?

The_common theme between the two questions is on-going clarity and maintenance. This can be_quite_a personal_'thing'_and,_like the proverbial cat, there_is more than one way_to skin_it.
Anyhow, to address them individually:

Q). Is it okay_to_use static methods_to declare BedSheet routes?
A). Yes, it is fine (but_read on...)

Q). Is it okay to_create Route facets_for_BedSheet?
A)._In short, yes. In_long...
As this (paraphrased) question implies -_neither BedSheet nor IoC have any_facets for declaring services or route handler_methods. This is largely because it_is not felt that such_facets and_associated services are 'core' enough_to be included_in the_frameworks.
Keeping the configuration_of routes and services in an_AppModule means it_is easy to find and keep_track_of - especially_for_newcomers_to the_code base.
On larger_projects,_a de-centralised_configuration_through facets can cause minor maintenance_headaches._For if using facets, the only way_to discover what services_you_have is through a_textual search. The same applies_to routes. A new comer trying_to make_sense of_the project would have to wade through various pages of search_results. Whereas a mere glance at_an AppModule would herald_the same_understanding.
The_word can is_deliberately_chosen because_with enough coding diligence, be it class_naming or_directory structure, services and routes become_logically grouped and are_easy_to find.
The Tales Framework has facets_for declaring routes, but has this_to say about them in
Externalising_Routes:

Defining_routes_along with methods as facets_is cool and quick, but it_has the 
_ following disadvantages:

Does not clearly define the_order_in which routes will be picked_up
You_cannot see all the routes that_your_app_defines in one place.

So declaring_services and routes with facets is_not bad, just be wary of it.  That_said, I've been_thinking about implementing a REST_API_based_on facets, similar to JAX-RS (Java API for RESTful Services)!
As_an aside,_facet configuration is_trivial to implement; for example if you had a facet_called @Service