I'm glad you got the point of :default, that's why I chose that name.

You can also use :default to merge several resources into the same
namespace and use routing requirements to distinguish the correct
controller based on the fine structure of the identifiers, e.g. a zip
code is 5 digits and a city is not, so assuming your controllers are
read only (e.g. you're using admin controllers for creation of data)
you can lump both zip codes and cities under states without any need
for an extra scope.

I know it may not seem like a big deal, but when you're building an
search engine optimized website, these are the types of small things
that can make the difference between being on the first page of
results and the second.

-chris

On Jun 17, 12:56 pm, Ben Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this would be extremely useful.  I created a fairly hackish
> monkey patch to Rails to use in a few projects that supports a new
> method called "root_resources" which would basically just eliminate that
> corresponding path segment.  However it looks like your method is much
> more clean and I'll start to use your plugin immediately, but would like
> to see this in Rails core.
>
> In general I feel there are some flexibility issues with the current
> Rails resource routing system that I find myself hacking around when
> implementing any sufficiently complex application, and this addition
> would go a long way towards eliminating them.
>
> Aside from nested resources such as in your example, this might also be
> useful in many other situations, such as allowing the root of a project
> to directly represent a resource not unlike how twitter works with URLs
> likehttp://twitter.com/rubiety.  Using this plugin you could define (at
> the bottom of the routes file!):
>
> map.resources :users, :default => true do
>   ...
> end
>
> And have users_url('rubiety') directly 
> generatehttp://twitter.com/rubietyrather than force it to be something 
> likehttp://twitter.com/users/rubiety.
>
> +1
>
> --
> Ben Hugheshttp://benhughes.name/
>
> Chris Eppstein wrote:
> > I've recently filed an enhancement request to allow drawing nested
> > route urls that are more user and search engine friendly. The ticket
> > is here:
> >http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/436-implied-rout...
>
> > I'm seeking feedback. There's a plugin to enable easy experimentation,
> > and a patch to rails, both hosted on github and linked from the
> > ticket.
>
> > This patch really works best when using "pretty urls" and results in a
> > url like so:
> > /local/categories/restaurants/subcategories/korean/states/california/
> > cities/mountain-view/businesses/totoro-tofu-house
>
> > to become:
> > /local/restaurants/korean/california/mountain-view/totoro-tofu-house
>
> > By changing your routes from this:
> > map.namespace :local do |local|
> >   local.resources :categories do |categories|
> >     categories.resources :subcategories do |subcategories|
> >       subcategories.resources :states do |states|
> >         states.resources :cities do |cities|
> >           cities.resources :businesses
> >         end
> >       end
> >     end
> >   end
> > end
>
> > to this:
> > map.namespace :local do |local|
> >   local.resources :categories, :default => true, :show
> > => :subcategories do |categories|
> >     categories.resources :subcategories, :show => :states do |
> > subcategories|
> >       subcategories.resources :states, :show => :cities do |states|
> >         states.resources :cities, :show => :businesses do |cities|
> >           cities.resources :businesses
> >         end
> >       end
> >     end
> >   end
> > end
>
> > Clearly this approach results in a routing collision of the show
> > action and the index action and you can control which one will get
> > precedence in the routing table by using :show or :default. In all
> > cases, both routes gets written so that the named routes work as
> > expected, even though they both are recognized as the same.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to