On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Kaspick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been using Rails almost since it's inception and have never seen
> reference to using "/blah" as the recommended approach. If it was the
> recommended approach, I'd expect the docs and books to use the
> "absolute" style as well, but they don't use it.
I think that the non-existent documentation for routes won't provide a
valid precedent for any argument. Essentially nothing was documented,
so looking for justification for anything in there is a sure road to
frustration.
> Regarding a solution I have in mind, I'm not really sure. Since
> nested controllers are a lot less common in practice, my thoughts are
> towards fixing that end of the stick. Would passing :nested => true
> be a somewhat acceptable approach? That's just a quick thought that
> springs to mind.
I realise the result can be surprising if this is the first time
you've used modules, but we can't go breaking every application that
uses this functionality without good cause. This really is just a
question of relative or absolute paths, and everything I can think of
defaults to relative.
File.open("tmp") doesn't default to /tmp. <a href="index.html">
doesn't default to /index.html.
I don't see why routes should be any different.
However in your case, the route points to some nonsense controller
that doesn't even exist. We could change *that* behaviour without
breaking anything.
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
