On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM, zambezi<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Rick and thanks for answering, > > I'm feeling rather muddled. In my brief ROR history I've been working > under the assumption that naming conventions called for controllers to > be in the singular. Of course I'm finding out that much has been > deprecated. So would you please confirm that controller names are > supposed to be plural.
This is a different Rick Since Rails became Restful, it's more common to have plural controller names since this is the default when generating routes using map.resources (and even map.resource). > > Regarding �...@responder = Responder.new(params[:responder]) > Since models and tables are "routeless", I'm not clear why routing > should be an issue here. And I thought that if the params hash is > empty, I will get an empty @responder object which is what I expect in > this case. > > I appreciate any further help you can offer. I think you've run into another unfortunately name clash. I'm assuming that you have a model called Responder, unfortunately it looks like in your controller in the line @responder = Responder.new(params[:responder]) Responder is actually resolving to ActionController::MimeResponds::Responder You might try something like @responder = ::Responder.new(params[:responder]) to force Ruby to look in the outermost namespace. -- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
