Thanks for the link to the nested resource thing, it was an interesting read. So I take it that it's a good idea to define both a nested resource and an independent one for any resource that needs to be nested?
On Jan 4, 2:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 3, 12:04 pm, Mike C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the advice, I didn't know about cancan, it looks like it'll > > make things a lot easier for me. As for the resources, that's the case > > except when I want to create a new resource. The to-be child doesn't > > have a parent yet since it doesn't exist at the moment so I'd have to > > pass the parent or its ID when I want to create a new resource. But in > > general is there a limit to how many levels an app should have? > > Its not necessarily authoritative, but here's an article that I like > that suggests limiting to two levels > max:http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2007/2/5/nesting-resources. > Usually a given resource only needs to be nested below its parent (for > create as you mention, for index if that's important, and for the > member actions if you want the scoping for some reason), so if you > have A has_many B has_many C, then expose: > > As > As/1/Bs > As/1/Bs/2 > Bs/2/Cs > Bs/2/Cs/3 > > No need for As/1 on those last two usually unless it really is unique > in describing the resource. > > Also, for authorization you can also look at > declarative_authorization; I often forget about this site, but its > pretty nifty for seeing what's > hip:http://www.ruby-toolbox.com/categories/rails_authorization.html > > \Peter -- 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.
