That's what exactly I am trying to explain and think the issue is. You have convention on how to configure something where you should had convention to avoid configuration (at least when still in the beginning of your development process). So let me describe what imho is proper convention over configuration in this case. If I have a rb file in my controllers folder with is named *_controller, for example foo_controller, then every method prefixed with action_* like action_bar is accessible through foo/bar. This way I have a convention to avoid configuration in the first steps of my development. Then I can use routes.rb to change and configure.
On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:12:53 PM UTC+2, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > 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 > > On Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:12:53 PM UTC+2, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/ZnL336CjCAYJ. 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.
