Unless your routes file has a default :controller/:action route then
the start action would be unroutable without that entry. It could
even be redundant or unused.
The start method may return nil but the sessions/start view will still
render (if it exists).
On Apr 26, 6:40 pm, John Merlino <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> M Daubs wrote in post #995201:
>
> > I believe you only have two restful routes (create and new) because of
> > the line:
>
> > :only => %w(create new)
>
> > And the start action is defined as an alternative new action here,
> > probably because the original author wanted a GET instead of POST (/
> > sessions/start):
>
> > :new => {:start => :get}
>
> > Based on the SessionController it looks like you may have more routes
> > then you are actually using.
>
> Thanks for response. I'm not understanding why someone may need to pass
> an alternative new action, when both the new and start are declared as
> methods in sessions controller. If the reason is because these are two
> kinds of 'new' actions that have different purposes, then why does start
> method silently return null since it doesn't contain any functionality
> within its scope? Maybe the answer isn't possible given the context I
> provided but in general terms, why might it be done?
>
> Thanks for response.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://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-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.
