It seems from the rest of the etiquette on this forum I'm supposed to tell you here to top-quote when replying ;p
On Jan 19, 7:05 pm, Mike C <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? It depends on the resource and how you want to access it, but I generally do. I didn't see it mentioned in here, but if you don't use something like make_resourceful or inherited_resource you should consider it to DRY up your CRUD based controllers. The reason I mention that is that if you use those then nested or not your controller code wouldn't change (if you don't want to use one you can always copy their design pattern to allow the same axiom of your code). Then it becomes a question of routes and of what you want to type for the path. I.e. do you want to do a_b_path(@a, @b) That means that you'll have the nested one because you need it (for create and index for sure) and then you can decide whether you want to enforce it for show as well (i.e. hide the Bs/1 URL , whether you have the un-nested route or not really is just a matter of if you want to expose that URL, since the controller won't change at all. -- 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.
