Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Stefan Buhr <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
Conrad Taylor wrote:
namespace :admin do resources :settings do
get :some_action, :on => :member # member route
get :some_other_action, :on => :collection # collection route
end end
Yes, someone *could* explicitly define all actions in the routes.rb,
but
that is exactly what I do not want to do -- this is not even close
to a
generic solution :P
Yes, this is true but you have a much greater level of control over
your actions. The default routes will make every action in Rails 3.0
use a GET request. Thus, you'll need to refactor all your views as
appropriately.
In addition, I dont like the idea of squeezing all the unRESTful parts
of the application into resources, when I do not even need or want all
the additional RESTful routes.
So, the question still stands: Is there a way to have regular
(generic!)
routes in namespaces like in rails 2
Please post the Rails 2.x route that you would like to convert to
Rails 3.0?
-Conrad
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
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-
t...@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
.
--
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-t...@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.
