Re: Hatred towards Nested Polymorphic Paths

Gabe da Silveira
2007-07-07T16:24:46Z

I gotta agree here.  Presuming that people should always use
root-level routes is going too far.  The URL carries a lot of
information, and why shouldn''t the developer have access to it?  Plus
I don''t really see how this polymorphic routing magic has much effect
on people''s design decisions.  I don''t think anyone is going
to
arbitrarily choose nested routing just because they don''t have to use
a named helper.  There are so many other considerations at play, and
jamming an array into link_to is not exactly magically delicious.

It sounds like the real issue is that there are too many patches and
too many bugs to manage.  Well if it can''t be implemented cleanly then
maybe it should be pulled.  But the whole "encouraging bad practices"
seems spurious.


On 7/7/07, Geoff B <gbuesing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think a case can be made for using an [@album, @track] nested route
> -- say a user browsed to album 45, and then clicked track 219 -- if
> your UI requires a "back to album 45" navigational link on the
track
> page, you couldn''t infer the referring album id from the resource
id
> alone if there''s a many-to-many relationship between albums and
tracks
> -- instead, you''d need to grab the album id from the URI.
>
> On Jul 7, 11:04 am, Josh Peek <joshp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 10:59 am, Geoff B <gbues...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So, are you saying that, instead of doing this:
> >
> > > link_to @track.name, [@album, @track]
> >
> > > ...we should be required to do this:
> >
> > > link_to @track.name, album_track_path(@album, @track)
> >
> > I''m saying you should be doing ...
> >
> >  link_to @track.name, @track
> >
> > Like I said, [@album, @track] is giving you an excuse to use complex
> > routing patterns.
>
>
> >
>


--
Gabe da Silveira