The 14/03/12, tydeas wrote: > Hello there, > I am new to the rails framework. I have seen that rails uses the > "Convention over configuration" philosophy. > Then when I create a controller "post_controller" I have to actually > configure it in the routes.rb file to get it working. Is this the > other way around, configuration over convention? > I would expect that if the controller exist all his actions are > available to be executed, and more to go actions for crud would accept > the "conventional" method and have names like create, delete etc... > What do you think? Correct me if I am wrong in something.
Convention is done the reverse way. Requesting for users/new will execute method new of class UsersController in controllers/user_controller.rb. All this naming is conventionnal. BTW, I wouldn't expect to have routes automagically relying on controllers because controllers often doesn't have routes attached. -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- 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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
