Rails 2.0 RESTful Routes action/id dichotomy

rubyonrails-talk
1

I don't have edge rails installed, otherwise I would just test it out. But in Rails 2.0 they are doing away with the semi-colon for several reasons. I think this is great, but it brings an interesting issue to the forefront that's actually bothered me in 1.2 as well...

How will Rails differentiate between an action on the collection and the id? For instance, if you have:

map.resources :listings, :collection => {:search => :get}

listings/1 listings/search (in 1.2 t it would be listings;search)

Interestingly this problem existed before if you tried to mix default routing with RESTful routes which you might want to do for aesthetic or hackish reasons.

2

It is my understanding that most are recommending removing the default routes when using RESTful Rails.

  # Resources routes   map.resources :listings, :collection => {:search => :get}

  # Install the default route as the lowest priority.   # map.connect ':controller/:action/:id.:format'   # map.connect ':controller/:action/:id'

But other than that, the same precedence is used in following routes as before.

3

Hey,

sorry if I've misinterpreted what you're saying - but you're speculating about a problem that (again, if I understand you correctly) does not exist.

The resources code (see resources.rb) adds collection routes before member routes - which means collection routes will take precedence during recognition.

HTH, Trevor

4

Interestingly this problem existed before if you tried to mix default routing with RESTful routes which you might want to do for aesthetic or hackish reasons.

Put your restful routes above your default routes. I actually remove my default ones altogether.

5

Right, that's the scenario I was thinking of. But I guess as long as you make sure your URL slugs never conflict with an action you'll be okay.

Jean-Etienne Durand wrote: > But still, if you use smart urls, you can never know if in > /people/whatever whatever is an action, or an ID...

Custom actions are defined explicitly, so you do know. Anything that's defined explicitly is not an id. Usually, ids are in another class entirely anyway. Like they're purely integers or they follow a stand form of perhaps 1-my-title. So there's not even any logical overlap.