How should you map resources that are join models like Memberships?
Lets say have you have Members and Groups that are joined through
Memberships.
map.resources :members do |members|
members.resources :groups do |groups|
groups.resources :memberships
end
end
This doesn''t seem right.
It would be nice to access all members, groups, and memberships at
/members, /groups, and /memberships. /members/1/memberships should list
Member #1''s memberships. /groups/1/memberships should list Group
#1''s
memberships.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Josh Peek wrote:> How should you map resources that are join models like Memberships? > > Lets say have you have Members and Groups that are joined through > Memberships. > > map.resources :members do |members| > members.resources :groups do |groups| > groups.resources :memberships > end > end > > This doesn''t seem right. > > It would be nice to access all members, groups, and memberships at > /members, /groups, and /memberships. /members/1/memberships should list > Member #1''s memberships. /groups/1/memberships should list Group #1''s > memberships.I would do map.resources :members do |memebers| members.resources :memberships end map.resources :groups do |groups| members.resources :memberships end This gives you access to all 3 models with no parent in the URL, and links memberships to each as well. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Alex Wayne wrote:> I would do > > map.resources :members do |memebers| > members.resources :memberships > end > > map.resources :groups do |groups| > members.resources :memberships > end > > This gives you access to all 3 models with no parent in the URL, and > links memberships to each as well.Whats the url to create a membership? POST /members/1/members?group_id=2 or you could POST /groups/2/members?member_id=1 Correct? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Josh Peek wrote:> Alex Wayne wrote: >> I would do >> >> map.resources :members do |memebers| >> members.resources :memberships >> end >> >> map.resources :groups do |groups| >> members.resources :memberships >> end >> >> This gives you access to all 3 models with no parent in the URL, and >> links memberships to each as well. > > Whats the url to create a membership? > > POST /members/1/members?group_id=2 > > or you could > > POST /groups/2/members?member_id=1 > > Correct?Those, and this: POST /memberships/?member_id=1&group_id=2 In any of the above URLs params[:memeber_id] and params[:group_id] should be exactly the same making your controller code easy. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Josh Peek wrote:> How should you map resources that are join models like Memberships? > > Lets say have you have Members and Groups that are joined through > Memberships. > > map.resources :members do |members| > members.resources :groups do |groups| > groups.resources :memberships > end > end > > This doesn''t seem right. > > It would be nice to access all members, groups, and memberships at > /members, /groups, and /memberships. /members/1/memberships should list > Member #1''s memberships. /groups/1/memberships should list Group #1''s > memberships.I think there isn''t a great way to handle that right now. I hope that ActiveResource associations will help sort it out soon. You can certainly create lots of routes and actions to do what you want, but it will be generate a lot of ways to do the same thing and some non-DRY controllers. map.resources :members do |member| member.resources :memberships, :groups end map.resources :groups do |group| group.resources :memberships, :members end map.resources :memberships do |membership| membership.resources :members, :groups end That''s nice and simple, but now you have a situation where an action must deal with three kinds of URLs, one for each kind of resource mapping listed above. For instance, a member might be shown using the following URLs GET /members/5 GET /groups/7/members/5 GET /memberships/11/members/5 Maybe not a big deal for #show, but what about the #new action? Does it make sense to allow new for all three paths, or just one? The big advantage of nested resources is that the parent resource provides a context for the child. I''m using this successfully with /articles/5/comments/7 type mappings. It simplifies things by making the context for comments explicit. But I''d never want to say /comments/7/articles to find a comment''s article. If you ignored the member (as in member/collection/new route types) actions for the child resources I think the multiple mappings could make sense. But I''d stay away from turning your actions into case-statement soup if it''s not really necessary. -- Josh Susser http://blog.hasmanythrough.com -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.