Steve, Not ideal but what if you had a luvd controller naming convention where controller names were prefixed with 'luvd' then excluded user paths with a 'luvd' prefix??
Jason On 28/09/2008, at 5:00 PM, Jason Keenan wrote: > > Hey there steve, > > I get not being a fan of the implementation, I'm never a fan of my > implementations. Using and Australianism, I'm a 'pissweak', > programmer, but I'm not sure what you mean about 'having to check for > existing paths before creating a new controller'? Using > 'ActionController::Routing.possible_controllers' means...ahh just > realised you mean that you have to check that a new controller name > doesn't match a user defined path. > > Mmmm, yes. I get how that would be annoying. I'll have a think > about it. > > Jason :) > > > On 28/09/2008, at 12:14 PM, Steven A Bristol wrote: > >> >> I'm not really a fan of this implementation. I like that it checks >> against current controller names, but I don't like having to check >> for >> existing paths before creating a new controller. This is too much >> pain >> for me as a developer. >> >> steve >> >>> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lovd by Less" 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/lovdbyless?hl=en Who loves ya baby? -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
