I''ve recently filed an enhancement request to allow drawing nested
route urls that are more user and search engine friendly. The ticket
is here:
http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/436-implied-routes-to-nested-collections
I''m seeking feedback. There''s a plugin to enable easy
experimentation,
and a patch to rails, both hosted on github and linked from the
ticket.
This patch really works best when using "pretty urls" and results in a
url like so:
/local/categories/restaurants/subcategories/korean/states/california/
cities/mountain-view/businesses/totoro-tofu-house
to become:
/local/restaurants/korean/california/mountain-view/totoro-tofu-house
By changing your routes from this:
map.namespace :local do |local|
local.resources :categories do |categories|
categories.resources :subcategories do |subcategories|
subcategories.resources :states do |states|
states.resources :cities do |cities|
cities.resources :businesses
end
end
end
end
end
to this:
map.namespace :local do |local|
local.resources :categories, :default => true, :show
=> :subcategories do |categories|
categories.resources :subcategories, :show => :states do |
subcategories|
subcategories.resources :states, :show => :cities do |states|
states.resources :cities, :show => :businesses do |cities|
cities.resources :businesses
end
end
end
end
end
Clearly this approach results in a routing collision of the show
action and the index action and you can control which one will get
precedence in the routing table by using :show or :default. In all
cases, both routes gets written so that the named routes work as
expected, even though they both are recognized as the same.
Thanks,
Chris
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I think this would be extremely useful. I created a fairly hackish
monkey patch to Rails to use in a few projects that supports a new
method called "root_resources" which would basically just eliminate
that
corresponding path segment. However it looks like your method is much
more clean and I''ll start to use your plugin immediately, but would
like
to see this in Rails core.
In general I feel there are some flexibility issues with the current
Rails resource routing system that I find myself hacking around when
implementing any sufficiently complex application, and this addition
would go a long way towards eliminating them.
Aside from nested resources such as in your example, this might also be
useful in many other situations, such as allowing the root of a project
to directly represent a resource not unlike how twitter works with URLs
like http://twitter.com/rubiety. Using this plugin you could define (at
the bottom of the routes file!):
map.resources :users, :default => true do
...
end
And have users_url(''rubiety'') directly generate
http://twitter.com/rubiety rather than force it to be something like
http://twitter.com/users/rubiety.
+1
--
Ben Hughes
http://benhughes.name/
Chris Eppstein wrote:> I''ve recently filed an enhancement request to allow drawing nested
> route urls that are more user and search engine friendly. The ticket
> is here:
>
http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/436-implied-routes-to-nested-collections
>
> I''m seeking feedback. There''s a plugin to enable easy
experimentation,
> and a patch to rails, both hosted on github and linked from the
> ticket.
>
> This patch really works best when using "pretty urls" and results
in a
> url like so:
> /local/categories/restaurants/subcategories/korean/states/california/
> cities/mountain-view/businesses/totoro-tofu-house
>
> to become:
> /local/restaurants/korean/california/mountain-view/totoro-tofu-house
>
> By changing your routes from this:
> map.namespace :local do |local|
> local.resources :categories do |categories|
> categories.resources :subcategories do |subcategories|
> subcategories.resources :states do |states|
> states.resources :cities do |cities|
> cities.resources :businesses
> end
> end
> end
> end
> end
>
> to this:
> map.namespace :local do |local|
> local.resources :categories, :default => true, :show
> => :subcategories do |categories|
> categories.resources :subcategories, :show => :states do |
> subcategories|
> subcategories.resources :states, :show => :cities do |states|
> states.resources :cities, :show => :businesses do |cities|
> cities.resources :businesses
> end
> end
> end
> end
> end
>
> Clearly this approach results in a routing collision of the show
> action and the index action and you can control which one will get
> precedence in the routing table by using :show or :default. In all
> cases, both routes gets written so that the named routes work as
> expected, even though they both are recognized as the same.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I''m glad you got the point of :default, that''s why I chose that name. You can also use :default to merge several resources into the same namespace and use routing requirements to distinguish the correct controller based on the fine structure of the identifiers, e.g. a zip code is 5 digits and a city is not, so assuming your controllers are read only (e.g. you''re using admin controllers for creation of data) you can lump both zip codes and cities under states without any need for an extra scope. I know it may not seem like a big deal, but when you''re building an search engine optimized website, these are the types of small things that can make the difference between being on the first page of results and the second. -chris On Jun 17, 12:56 pm, Ben Hughes <synenterpri...@gmail.com> wrote:> I think this would be extremely useful. I created a fairly hackish > monkey patch to Rails to use in a few projects that supports a new > method called "root_resources" which would basically just eliminate that > corresponding path segment. However it looks like your method is much > more clean and I''ll start to use your plugin immediately, but would like > to see this in Rails core. > > In general I feel there are some flexibility issues with the current > Rails resource routing system that I find myself hacking around when > implementing any sufficiently complex application, and this addition > would go a long way towards eliminating them. > > Aside from nested resources such as in your example, this might also be > useful in many other situations, such as allowing the root of a project > to directly represent a resource not unlike how twitter works with URLs > likehttp://twitter.com/rubiety. Using this plugin you could define (at > the bottom of the routes file!): > > map.resources :users, :default => true do > ... > end > > And have users_url(''rubiety'') directly generatehttp://twitter.com/rubietyrather than force it to be something likehttp://twitter.com/users/rubiety. > > +1 > > -- > Ben Hugheshttp://benhughes.name/ > > Chris Eppstein wrote: > > I''ve recently filed an enhancement request to allow drawing nested > > route urls that are more user and search engine friendly. The ticket > > is here: > >http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/436-implied-rout... > > > I''m seeking feedback. There''s a plugin to enable easy experimentation, > > and a patch to rails, both hosted on github and linked from the > > ticket. > > > This patch really works best when using "pretty urls" and results in a > > url like so: > > /local/categories/restaurants/subcategories/korean/states/california/ > > cities/mountain-view/businesses/totoro-tofu-house > > > to become: > > /local/restaurants/korean/california/mountain-view/totoro-tofu-house > > > By changing your routes from this: > > map.namespace :local do |local| > > local.resources :categories do |categories| > > categories.resources :subcategories do |subcategories| > > subcategories.resources :states do |states| > > states.resources :cities do |cities| > > cities.resources :businesses > > end > > end > > end > > end > > end > > > to this: > > map.namespace :local do |local| > > local.resources :categories, :default => true, :show > > => :subcategories do |categories| > > categories.resources :subcategories, :show => :states do | > > subcategories| > > subcategories.resources :states, :show => :cities do |states| > > states.resources :cities, :show => :businesses do |cities| > > cities.resources :businesses > > end > > end > > end > > end > > end > > > Clearly this approach results in a routing collision of the show > > action and the index action and you can control which one will get > > precedence in the routing table by using :show or :default. In all > > cases, both routes gets written so that the named routes work as > > expected, even though they both are recognized as the same. > > > Thanks, > > Chris--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Great plugin! I plan on using this and I am hoping you could elaborate on how to use :default to merge resources into the same namespace?> You can also use :default to merge several resources into the same > namespace and use routing requirements to distinguish the correct > controller based on the fine structure of the identifiersI have a routing issue similar to your example, only my routes are formatted in this order state, city, category, subcategory, businesses. And I would like to add an addition mapping for state, city, keword, businesses. Is there a way to do this with your plugin? Thank for you help, Kevin Beck On Jun 17, 2:46 pm, Chris Eppstein <chriseppst...@gmail.com> wrote:> I''m glad you got the point of :default, that''s why I chose that name. > > You can also use :default to merge several resources into the same > namespace and use routing requirements to distinguish the correct > controller based on the fine structure of the identifiers, e.g. a zip > code is 5 digits and a city is not, so assuming your controllers are > read only (e.g. you''re using admin controllers for creation of data) > you can lump both zip codes and cities under states without any need > for an extra scope. > > I know it may not seem like a big deal, but when you''re building an > search engine optimized website, these are the types of small things > that can make the difference between being on the first page of > results and the second. > > -chris > > On Jun 17, 12:56 pm, Ben Hughes <synenterpri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think this would be extremely useful. I created a fairly hackish > > monkey patch to Rails to use in a few projects that supports a new > > method called "root_resources" which would basically just eliminate that > > corresponding path segment. However it looks like your method is much > > more clean and I''ll start to use your plugin immediately, but would like > > to see this in Rails core. > > > In general I feel there are some flexibility issues with the current > > Rails resource routing system that I find myself hacking around when > > implementing any sufficiently complex application, and this addition > > would go a long way towards eliminating them. > > > Aside from nested resources such as in your example, this might also be > > useful in many other situations, such as allowing the root of a project > > to directly represent a resource not unlike how twitter works with URLs > > likehttp://twitter.com/rubiety. Using this plugin you could define (at > > the bottom of the routes file!): > > > map.resources :users, :default => true do > > ... > > end > > > And have users_url(''rubiety'') directly generatehttp://twitter.com/rubietyratherthan force it to be something likehttp://twitter.com/users/rubiety. > > > +1 > > > -- > > Ben Hugheshttp://benhughes.name/ > > > Chris Eppstein wrote: > > > I''ve recently filed an enhancement request to allow drawing nested > > > route urls that are more user and search engine friendly. The ticket > > > is here: > > >http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/436-implied-rout... > > > > I''m seeking feedback. There''s a plugin to enable easy experimentation, > > > and a patch to rails, both hosted on github and linked from the > > > ticket. > > > > This patch really works best when using "pretty urls" and results in a > > > url like so: > > > /local/categories/restaurants/subcategories/korean/states/california/ > > > cities/mountain-view/businesses/totoro-tofu-house > > > > to become: > > > /local/restaurants/korean/california/mountain-view/totoro-tofu-house > > > > By changing your routes from this: > > > map.namespace :local do |local| > > > local.resources :categories do |categories| > > > categories.resources :subcategories do |subcategories| > > > subcategories.resources :states do |states| > > > states.resources :cities do |cities| > > > cities.resources :businesses > > > end > > > end > > > end > > > end > > > end > > > > to this: > > > map.namespace :local do |local| > > > local.resources :categories, :default => true, :show > > > => :subcategories do |categories| > > > categories.resources :subcategories, :show => :states do | > > > subcategories| > > > subcategories.resources :states, :show => :cities do |states| > > > states.resources :cities, :show => :businesses do |cities| > > > cities.resources :businesses > > > end > > > end > > > end > > > end > > > end > > > > Clearly this approach results in a routing collision of the show > > > action and the index action and you can control which one will get > > > precedence in the routing table by using :show or :default. In all > > > cases, both routes gets written so that the named routes work as > > > expected, even though they both are recognized as the same. > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hi Kevin, Glad you like it!> elaborate on how to use :default to merge resources into the same namespace?map.namespace :merged do |merged| merged.root :controller => "merged", :action => "index" merged.resources :zipcodes, :default => true, :requirements => {:id => /\d{5}/} merged.resources :states, :default => true end> Is there a way to do this with your plugin?Probably. But I''m not sure what urls you want and what you''ve tried so far that didn''t work. Go ahead and reply directly to me with more details and I''ll help you out. -Chris On Jul 11, 10:59 am, Kevin Beck <kevinbec...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Great plugin! I plan on using this and I am hoping you > > > You can also use :default to merge several resources into the same > > namespace and use routing requirements to distinguish the correct > > controller based on the fine structure of the identifiers > > I have a routing issue similar to your example, only my routes are > formatted in this order state, city, category, subcategory, > businesses. And I would like to add an addition mapping for state, > city, keword, businesses. Is there a way to do this with your plugin? > > Thank for you help, > > Kevin Beck > > On Jun 17, 2:46 pm, Chris Eppstein <chriseppst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I''m glad you got the point of :default, that''s why I chose that name. > > > You can also use :default to merge several resources into the same > > namespace and use routing requirements to distinguish the correct > > controller based on the fine structure of the identifiers, e.g. a zip > > code is 5 digits and a city is not, so assuming your controllers are > > read only (e.g. you''re using admin controllers for creation of data) > > you can lump both zip codes and cities under states without any need > > for an extra scope. > > > I know it may not seem like a big deal, but when you''re building an > > search engine optimized website, these are the types of small things > > that can make the difference between being on the first page of > > results and the second. > > > -chris > > > On Jun 17, 12:56 pm, Ben Hughes <synenterpri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think this would be extremely useful. I created a fairly hackish > > > monkey patch to Rails to use in a few projects that supports a new > > > method called "root_resources" which would basically just eliminate that > > > corresponding path segment. However it looks like your method is much > > > more clean and I''ll start to use your plugin immediately, but would like > > > to see this in Rails core. > > > > In general I feel there are some flexibility issues with the current > > > Rails resource routing system that I find myself hacking around when > > > implementing any sufficiently complex application, and this addition > > > would go a long way towards eliminating them. > > > > Aside from nested resources such as in your example, this might also be > > > useful in many other situations, such as allowing the root of a project > > > to directly represent a resource not unlike how twitter works with URLs > > > likehttp://twitter.com/rubiety. Using this plugin you could define (at > > > the bottom of the routes file!): > > > > map.resources :users, :default => true do > > > ... > > > end > > > > And have users_url(''rubiety'') directly generatehttp://twitter.com/rubietyratherthanforce it to be something likehttp://twitter.com/users/rubiety. > > > > +1 > > > > -- > > > Ben Hugheshttp://benhughes.name/ > > > > Chris Eppstein wrote: > > > > I''ve recently filed an enhancement request to allow drawing nested > > > > route urls that are more user and search engine friendly. The ticket > > > > is here: > > > >http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/436-implied-rout... > > > > > I''m seeking feedback. There''s a plugin to enable easy experimentation, > > > > and a patch to rails, both hosted on github and linked from the > > > > ticket. > > > > > This patch really works best when using "pretty urls" and results in a > > > > url like so: > > > > /local/categories/restaurants/subcategories/korean/states/california/ > > > > cities/mountain-view/businesses/totoro-tofu-house > > > > > to become: > > > > /local/restaurants/korean/california/mountain-view/totoro-tofu-house > > > > > By changing your routes from this: > > > > map.namespace :local do |local| > > > > local.resources :categories do |categories| > > > > categories.resources :subcategories do |subcategories| > > > > subcategories.resources :states do |states| > > > > states.resources :cities do |cities| > > > > cities.resources :businesses > > > > end > > > > end > > > > end > > > > end > > > > end > > > > > to this: > > > > map.namespace :local do |local| > > > > local.resources :categories, :default => true, :show > > > > => :subcategories do |categories| > > > > categories.resources :subcategories, :show => :states do | > > > > subcategories| > > > > subcategories.resources :states, :show => :cities do |states| > > > > states.resources :cities, :show => :businesses do |cities| > > > > cities.resources :businesses > > > > end > > > > end > > > > end > > > > end > > > > end > > > > > Clearly this approach results in a routing collision of the show > > > > action and the index action and you can control which one will get > > > > precedence in the routing table by using :show or :default. In all > > > > cases, both routes gets written so that the named routes work as > > > > expected, even though they both are recognized as the same. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---