Fearless Fool wrote: > Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: >>> ... >> No. The basic 7 REST actions are common, not gospel. There's nothing >> wrong with making plot a custom REST action (route would be the same as >> above, but on the same footing with domain/:domain_id/edit ). > > If I understand correctly, when you say "on the same footing with > domain/:domain_id/edit", you are recommending adding new actions to > DomainController beyond the RESTful seven,
Beyond the *common* RESTful 7. Again, those actions are common, but not exhaustive. > so we might have > domain/:domain_id/plot or domain/:domain_id/report -- is this what you > meant? Yes. > >> And please: use shallow routes. There's probably no reason to have the >> user_id in the domain path. > > In this (slightly contrived) example, specific domains belong to > individual users, so the user/:user_id/domain/:domain_id seems > appropriate. (If you disagree, take a look at > http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/208631 and let me know if I've been > mis-informed... :) Domains belong to users, but since the domain already knows whom it belongs to, there's usually no reason to put that information in the path and make longer URLs. > >>> Also, the app calls for radically different page layouts depending on >>> selected display style (e.g. plot vs table view) -- can one controller >>> invoke multiple views? Or must you create one controller per view? >> >> What do you mean here? > > The user can choose between viewing the data in tabular form or as a > plot, but the .erb code that generates those are radically different. (Aside: get into the habit of using Haml, not ERb.) > I > think @Sharagoz answered my question here: the controller can select a > "table" template or a "plot" template accordingly. (That was news to > me.) It can, but usually if you want different view files, you probably have things that should be different controller actions. > >>> And finally, would you back the controller with a Plot model? ... >> >> You don't have to have a model for each controller. You don't have to >> have a controller for each model. You don't have to have a database >> table for each model. > > Noted. @Sharagoz pointed that out as well. > > Thanks both! > > - ff Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://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.
