On 8/5/07, Hendy Irawan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there a way to use 'resources' while still using our own conventions? > > In Rails 1.2.3 and earlier I simply override it. I'm not sure how to do it > > 1.2.3. > > In my app, I have two Posts controller, one is for admin (read write) side, > one is for user (read only) side. > > The intended named routes would be: > > > admin_posts /admin/posts/ > admin_show_post /admin/posts/2 > edit /admin/posts/2/edit > update /admin/posts/2 > posts /posts/ > post /posts/2 > (etc.) > I think I can do this using 3 resources statements, IF 'resources' is > fragmentable, one for admin index and show (that has custom named routes > name), one for edit and update and destroy, one for regular show and index. > > But for now, I'm not sure how to do this other than setting up the routes > manually using the old way (i.e. without using 'resources'). > > Or to put it another way: > > How can I suppress a few routes to be generated by resource/resources > statement? (i.e. I only want index and show, but not the others; or I want > to exclude destroy) > > Thank you. > > (I'm posting this to core since this only applies to later Rails versions)
ActionController::Resources does not provide a way to exclude routes or use your own conventions. This isn't really a support forum, that's what the main rubyonrails-talk is for. This forum is to discuss future development of the rails framework. -- Rick Olson http://lighthouseapp.com http://weblog.techno-weenie.net http://mephistoblog.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
