Rails - Jan 2006 - Using :id=>''something'' vs :mid=>''something'' params

Is there any reason for using :id=>''something'' instead of
:mid=>''something''
in link_to or link_to_remote? (well other than generating a nicer link)
My tool for analysing apache logs is considering /controller/action/4 as a
different link than /controller/action/5, so instead of counting
/controller/action it will count every variation of that parameter.
Bogdan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060123/9a5a75f0/attachment.html

> Is there any reason for using :id=>''something'' instead
of :mid=>''something''
> in link_to or link_to_remote?
Well, if the parameter is an id, its best to call it id.  That doesn''t
mean rails has to generate routes of the form /controller/action/id,
however.  Just as you can add extra parts to routes in rails (eg
:controller/:action/:year/:month/:day), you could (if you really felt
you had to) change the default route in routes.rb to
:controller/:action.  This will generate urls of the form
/controller/action?id=something.  Even so, I''d always prefer clean
urls over a scheme like this.
>  My tool for analysing apache logs is considering /controller/action/4 as a
> different link than /controller/action/5, so instead of counting
> /controller/action it will count every variation of that parameter.
I don''t have any experience in log analysis, but surely
there''s
software that can handle this common url pattern?

Tom

Thanks, i didn''t think about routes.rb

On 1/23/06, Tom Ward <tom@popdog.net> wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason for using :id=>''something''
instead of
> :mid=>''something''
> > in link_to or link_to_remote?
>
> Well, if the parameter is an id, its best to call it id.  That
doesn''t
> mean rails has to generate routes of the form /controller/action/id,
> however.  Just as you can add extra parts to routes in rails (eg
> :controller/:action/:year/:month/:day), you could (if you really felt
> you had to) change the default route in routes.rb to
> :controller/:action.  This will generate urls of the form
> /controller/action?id=something.  Even so, I''d always prefer clean
> urls over a scheme like this.
>
> >  My tool for analysing apache logs is considering /controller/action/4
> as a
> > different link than /controller/action/5, so instead of counting
> > /controller/action it will count every variation of that parameter.
>
> I don''t have any experience in log analysis, but surely
there''s
> software that can handle this common url pattern?
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060123/3d7b03cd/attachment.html

I ran into the issue last night, but was in a hurry so I just made a note to
investigate it today.  When I used id for a page with a form, the submit
action was incorrect.  Like this -

<%= link_to("Form", :action=>"form_page", :id=>1)
%>

That gets you a url like - /controller/form_page/1

then, the form start tag -
<%= start_form_tag("form_save") %>

will submit to - /controller/form_page/form_save

I''m sure my mistake is an obvious one, because this certianly
isn''t desired
behavior.

matt

On 1/23/06, Tom Ward <tom@popdog.net> wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason for using :id=>''something''
instead of
> :mid=>''something''
> > in link_to or link_to_remote?
>
> Well, if the parameter is an id, its best to call it id.  That
doesn''t
> mean rails has to generate routes of the form /controller/action/id,
> however.  Just as you can add extra parts to routes in rails (eg
> :controller/:action/:year/:month/:day), you could (if you really felt
> you had to) change the default route in routes.rb to
> :controller/:action.  This will generate urls of the form
> /controller/action?id=something.  Even so, I''d always prefer clean
> urls over a scheme like this.
>
> >  My tool for analysing apache logs is considering /controller/action/4
> as a
> > different link than /controller/action/5, so instead of counting
> > /controller/action it will count every variation of that parameter.
>
> I don''t have any experience in log analysis, but surely
there''s
> software that can handle this common url pattern?
>
> Tom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060123/51d3dc45/attachment.html

On 1/23/06, matthew clark <winescout@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I ran into the issue last night, but was in a hurry so I just made a note
to
> investigate it today.  When I used id for a page with a form, the submit
> action was incorrect.  Like this -
>
>  <%= link_to("Form", :action=>"form_page",
:id=>1) %>
>
>  That gets you a url like - /controller/form_page/1
>
>  then, the form start tag -
>  <%= start_form_tag("form_save") %>
>
>  will submit to - /controller/form_page/form_save
>
>  I''m sure my mistake is an obvious one, because this certianly
isn''t desired
> behavior.
Try start_form_tag({:action => "form_save", :id => 1})

Tom