Hi Julian,
Thanks for the response.
The problem with the proposed solution is that i have to define
separate routes for EACH resource and replace the url method with this
custom one[url(:location, location, location.name)]
I think the Rails solution does encourage code simplicity/modularity
because you can just set your routes to be map.resources locations and
your link method is always the same: location_path(location). Anytime
you need to alter the resource path, you can alter the model's to
param method.
So one method change solves the issue in Rails whereas the Merb
implementation, i would have to search and replace all instances of
the url method and add custom routes for each resource?
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
On Nov 14, 5:05 pm, Julian Leviston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That seems like a spastic place to put it, to me.
>
> What if you want to re-use your models at a later date? If so, you've
> got some kind of URL-bindings in them... what if the models aren't
> even being used in a merb or rails app?
>
> Way to tie the models to the app forever!
>
> This is the problem with Rails - it doesn't focus on re-use enough. If
> I remember correctly DHH even said something akin to you're better off
> rolling a fresh project each time from memory.
>
> Me? I'd prefer drop-in-reusable code.
>
> This push towards tiny controllers is a bit stupid, IMHO. The
> controllers essentially are the core glue of your app. The view layer
> is the part where the user interfaces with your app, and this (as far
> as I'm concerned) includes the URL - this is a part of the user-
> interface to your app. Thus, the router is part of the view layer.
>
> Therefore, the router should be the place to specify this. The
> documentation is a little light on, isn't it?
>
> So far as I can see, the way to do this would be a named route thusly:
>
> # in your routes file
>
> Merb::Router.prepare do
> match("/location/:id-:name").to(:controller => :location, :action
> => :show).name("location")
> end
>
> # usage - in view files
>
> url(:location, location, location.name)
>
> It would be nice to be able to specify methods of arguments:
>
> Merb::Router.prepare do
> match("/location/:id-#{argument_1.id.as(:id)}").to(:controller
> => :location, :action => :show).name("location")
> end
>
> but that looks really messy and convoluted. There must be a simpler
> solution: I'd wager it'd be off the beaten-track of rails-like routes.
> Surely we've outgrown them in flexibility and function. Shit, I know
> Rails has!
>
> Essentially what would we're aiming at is a good way to specify
> matching 'location/' then a named (:id) parameter that represents the
> first object's id method, then a named parameter (:name) that
> represents the first object's name method.
>
> Food for though.
>
> Julian.
>
> On 15/11/2008, at 11:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> > hi,
> > how can i define the routes such that url(:location, location) would
> > generate this url "/location/3-san_diego" rather than "/location/3"
>
> > I don't understand this help page
> >http://wiki.merbivore.com/howto/router
>
> > In Rails, I can define the url in the model, not the routes file using
> > defto_param"#{id}-#{name}" end
>
> > O Nov 13, 11:40 am, "Michael Klishin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> 2008/11/13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>> Won't the router just catch urls, not define them?
>
> >> Router defines rules for both recognition and generation. Same thing
> >> in Django, Rails, Pylons and wherever else you can find the same
> >> routing table approach.
> >> --
> >> MK
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"merb" 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/merb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
