Peter, your original ideas don't "take-away" from anything. They just don't speak to me and they wouldn't make my apps better organized. Note that I'm talking strictly about the controllers issue - the namespaced models thing... I use that all over the place.
But as far as interactions between routes.rb and controllers - I have never felt that there should be a strict correlation between the hierarchy of my URLs and my class structure. Your original proposal seemed to push very strongly in that direction. Trev On 19-Jul-07, at 1:45 PM, Peter wrote: > > I appreciate everyone sharing their own perspective. It's insightful. > > Trevor, I absolutely agree with you in saying that "convention over > configuration" applies to a universal solution. But how does what I'm > proposing take away from that? Namespaces should by no means be an > enforced axiom, but it should be one that exists for a particular > scenario, which in my opinion can work for most. > > Rick, that sounds great! Thats exactly what I'm talking about here. > So it looks like there is already some overlap. What would the class > definitions for customer.rb and tag.rb look like in edge? > > ... I'm assuming: > > class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base > end > # table => "customers" > > class Customer::Tag < ActiveRecord::Base > end > # table => "customer_tags" > > > Regards, > > Peter > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
