You are right. I think I just added the :only => [:index] to test the concept. I was trying to point out that even with:
map.resources :lists, :shallow => true, :has_many => :items The index action is called and you must handle the situation that this only applies if :item_id is present. In a more complex scenario, I posted a reply in the thread <http:// groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/ d04c347caccc544a> that points out that you must handle the index action based on the circumstance. I may want to enter a nested route at some other point than the root (company in the example). Project managers may want to enter nested resources from a list of their current/active projects, or the boss may want to see all current/active projects. Learning the RoR way of defining these requirements has been a challenge. In some cases it provides an elegant simple solution. In others it adds things you didn't expect. Steve Alex On Sep 14, 6:51 am, Sijo Kg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve Alex > > I cant understand why you need > > map.resources :items, :only => [:index] > > since item always coexist with lists So why it treated as seperate? > Cant you do like > > map.resources :lists, :shallow => true, :has_many => :items > > And then in index of items as > > def index > �...@list_items = list.items > end > > def list > @list = List.find(params[:list_id]) > end > > Sijo > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
