I take it no one has poked around with the Rails 3.1 engines yet?
-Adam On Jul 25, 3:27 pm, astjohn <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was hoping someone could please clarify the differences between a > full engine and a mountable one. > > I have noticed the following: > > ** Full Engine ** > - With a full engine, the parent application inherits the routes from > the engine. It is not necessary to specify anything in parent_app/ > config/routes.rb. Specifying the gem in Gemfile is enough. The > engine routes are specified as: > > # my_engine/config/routes.rb > Rails.application.routes.draw do > # whatever > end > > - No namespacing of models, controllers, etc. These are immediately > accessible to the parent application. > > ** Mountable Engine ** > - The engine's namespace is isolated by default. > > # my_engine/lib/my_engine/engine.rb > module MyEngine > class Engine < Rails::Engine > isolate_namespace MyEngine > end > end > > - With a mountable engine, the routes are namespaced and the parent > app can bundle this functionality under a single route: > > # my_engine/config/routes.rb > MyEngine::Engine.routes.draw do > #whatever > end > > # parent_app/config/routes.rb > Rails.application.routes.draw do > mount MyEngine::Engine => "/engine", :as => "namespaced" > end > > - Models, controllers, etc are isolated from the parent application - > although helpers can be shared easily. > > Is this correct and are these the main differences? Are there any > other differences between a full and mountable engine that I missed? > > Thanks, > Adam -- 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.
