Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-31 Thread DragonFlyEye
It's not so much wrong as incomplete. Any URL *beginning* with '/ cooks/' will be handled in the above-quoted fashion. But if it begins *and ends* with '/cooks', without another routing statement, you'll get the error you're talking about. Have a look at the pre-defined routing for pages that's

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-31 Thread SacoDesign
Thanks for the example, DragonFlyEye and thanks for the feedback Nikhil. I have finally come to terms with needing 2 statements. In 1.2 (even if it was incomplete) it worked with one statement. The features of 1.3 are well worth specifying 2 routes. Thanks again! On Aug 31, 2:17 pm,

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-31 Thread mark_story
To explain a bit why the extra route is needed. The Router in 1.2 did a lot of black magic, guessing at what you meant instead of just doing what you typed. This incurred a ton of overhead as it had to attempt several different guesses at what might work for each route. Most of the guesswork

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-30 Thread DragonFlyEye
Not sure what order you had things in, but order is important. So, you should be able to get things working by putting these two in the following order: Router::connect('/blog/:action/*', Router::connect('/blog/*', array('controller'='news_articles')); Obviously, the /blog/* will catch all

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-30 Thread Nikhil
SacoDesign is right. its not working as expected (or the cook book is wrong) - - Here is the same from cookbook ( http://book.cakephp.org/view/46/Routes-Configuration ) Another common use for the Router is to define an alias for a controller. Let's say that instead of accessing our regular URL

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-26 Thread SacoDesign
Thanks for the response. I still cannot get the entire directory to respond as a controller without 2 router::connect() calls. I removed the 'action'='index' as suggested. Has anyone else experienced this issue? I removed every route from my routes.php and tried the following:

Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-25 Thread SacoDesign
Hello, I'm upgrading my app from 1.2 to 1.3. I have several custom routes setup like so: Router::connect('/blog/:action/*', array('controller'='news_articles', 'action'='index')); This works fine, except for when the url is only /blog/. In that case I get a cannot find blog controller error.

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-25 Thread cricket
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:05 AM, SacoDesign sign...@sacodesign.com wrote: Hello, I'm upgrading my app from 1.2 to 1.3.  I have several custom routes setup like so: Router::connect('/blog/:action/*', array('controller'='news_articles', 'action'='index')); This works fine, except for when

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-25 Thread SacoDesign
I expected that /blog/ would route to the news_articles controller (index action) like a call to /blog/index would do. This is the way it worked on 1.2. Now, on 1.3, a request for /blog/ looks for the blog controller. Is there any way to combine the two Router::connect()'s into one? To answer

Re: Router::connect() not behaving as expected in 1.3?

2010-08-25 Thread DragonFlyEye
That all looks correct, and it would be the same in 1.2. You might write the following, though: Router::connect('/blog*', array('controller' = 'news_articles')); That would push all requests for the /blog directory to the right controller, then you can create the actions you want and they'll get