Except that using "/" for absolute vs nothing for relative has never been a recommended approach when working with parameterized (hash) urls. There is A LOT of code (almost certainly a valid assumption) that does not use the "/" method of specifying the controller (which is what I have used at the moment) and this nesting behaviour will certainly break that code as soon as a nested controller is used.
For me a nested controller is the exception to the norm, not the other way around. -1 to the current behavior. On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:31 AM, S. Brent Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1 to the current behaviour... it's just like accessing a relative > file path vs an absolute one. > > Cheers. > > > On Sep 23, 8:13 am, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Andrew Kaspick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> >> > I've run across an issue with namespaced controllers and url generation. >> >> > Fromhttp://github.com/rails/rails/tree/master/actionpack/lib/action_contr... >> > (line 322) I'm wondering what the purpose of the section of code with >> > this comment is: >> >> > # if the controller has changed, make sure it changes relative to the >> > # current controller module, if any. In other words, if we're currently >> > # on admin/get, and the new controller is 'set', the new controller >> > # should really be admin/set. >> >> > My scenario is the following... >> >> > I have view layout code with link_to's the use a hash to specify the url >> >> > link_to 'Example', {:controller => 'nonamespace', :action => 'index'} >> >> > which generates "/nonamespace" >> >> > But when I access a controller that is namespaced such as >> > "/namespace/blah/action", that same link_to now generates >> > "/namespace/nonamespace" >> >> > So from what I can tell the routing code is making an assumption that >> > I don't think it should which seems to be that generated urls >> > (sepcified with a hash) should remain in the context of the current >> > views controller. In my case it's code for a layout which can apply >> > to many controllers, so this assumption is incorrect and causing this >> > issue. >> >> > Can somebody explain the assumption made by the routing code and if >> > this is indeed a bug? >> >> Whether it's a bug or not is kind of a matter of interpretation. But >> the *original intention* here was to support nested controllers with >> relative links. So, f.ex: >> >> Admin >> - UsersController >> - TagsController >> UsersController >> >> If you're in admin/tags/somethign and link to :controller=>'users'. >> Where is it meant to go? With the current behaviour it will go to >> /admin/users which is 'probably' a reasonable assumption. >> >> You can work around this with :controller=> '/nonamespace' which will >> work from anywhere. >> >> I'm interested in people's opinions on this one, we can't really >> change it for 2.2, but for the 2.3.x series we could try and >> rationalise all this stuff. >> >> -- >> Cheers >> >> Koz > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
