I'm stuck with some very simple routing requirements. Somehow I believe
this is not even possible with the new Rails 3 Router:
So i have my Admin::SettingsController class in controllers/admin
My intention is to access the admin-controllers via
/admin/:controller/:action
in my routes.rb I add:
namespace :admin do
match ':controller(/:action(/:id))'
end (I want the admin part of my application to be unRESTful)
However, now EVERY controller is accessable via
/admin/controller/action!... For example, url_for :controller =>
'books', :action => 'show' generates "/admin/books/show" ... likewise,
url_for :controller => 'admin/settings', :action => 'group' now
generates "/admin/admin/settings/group" (should be:
"/admin/settings/group".
How can I get SIMPLE namespace'd controllers to work in rails without
affecting other controllers? Does anyone know?
Then, you'll end up with the following controllers:
/admin/settings
Hey,
thanks for the hint, but resources() only adds the standard actions to
the route (index, show, edit, new, create, update, delete). I'm looking
for a more generic approach using default routes for many controllers
and actions in one namespace.
namespace :admin do resources :settings do
get :some_action, :on => :member # member route
get :some_other_action, :on => :collection # collection route
end end
Yes, someone *could* explicitly define all actions in the routes.rb, but
that is exactly what I do not want to do -- this is not even close to a
generic solution
In addition, I dont like the idea of squeezing all the unRESTful parts
of the application into resources, when I do not even need or want all
the additional RESTful routes.
So, the question still stands: Is there a way to have regular (generic!)
routes in namespaces like in rails 2?
namespace :admin do resources :settings do
get :some_action, :on => :member # member route
get :some_other_action, :on => :collection # collection route
end end
Yes, someone *could* explicitly define all actions in the routes.rb, but
that is exactly what I do not want to do -- this is not even close to a
generic solution
Yes, this is true but you have a much greater level of control over your actions. The default routes will make every action in Rails 3.0 use a GET request. Thus, you'll need to refactor all your views as appropriately.
In addition, I dont like the idea of squeezing all the unRESTful parts
of the application into resources, when I do not even need or want all
the additional RESTful routes.
So, the question still stands: Is there a way to have regular (generic!)
routes in namespaces like in rails 2
Please post the Rails 2.x route that you would like to convert to Rails 3.0?
Please post the Rails 2.x route that you would like to convert to
Rails 3.0?
Hey Conrad,
I think I made a mistake.
I was under the impression that following code in rails 2
map.namespace :admin do |admin|
admin.connect ':controller/:action/:id'
end
was enabling /admin/any_controller/any_action =>
Addmin::AnyController#any_action
but it did not.
instead, the default root was still enabled. The above code never
worked.
Ultimatly, what I am trying to do, is to use the default root but ONLY
for controllers in a specific namespace (other parts of the application
are using resources)
Please post the Rails 2.x route that you would like to convert to
Rails 3.0?
Hey Conrad,
I think I made a mistake.
I was under the impression that following code in rails 2
map.namespace :admin do |admin|
admin.connect ':controller/:action/:id'
end
was enabling /admin/any_controller/any_action =>
Addmin::AnyController#any_action
but it did not.
instead, the default root was still enabled. The above code never
worked.
Ultimatly, what I am trying to do, is to use the default root but ONLY
for controllers in a specific namespace (other parts of the application
are using resources)
What your looking for is scope in routes:
scope "/admin" do
match ":controller(/:action(/:id))"
resources :posts # :controller => PostsController
end
