It sounds like it is generally recommended either not to nest controllers at
all or at most by one level. However this seems to relate mostly to
resources. Interactive functionality generally works well with resources,
but for a complete website there is often additional content that contains
information not suitable for resources, but that still uses the same views
mechanism for consistency.
I''ve got some resources and also some content that doesn''t
suit using
resources and it is convenient to store the content in hierarchical
directories (?namespaces). The content is written as rails views. All worked
OK under rails 2 but I''m struggling to get routing to work under rails
3.
For example if you have an app/views directory structure such as:
views >
level1
level2
level3
and would to place views at each of these levels, including an index action,
what is the best way to create route(s) in routes.rb to accommodate this?
Using the default wildcard route of match
'':controller(/:action(/:id(.:format)))'' results in the top
level working but
the index action for level2 results in an action not known for level1
controller from the router.
I''ve experiemented with various combinations of namespace, scope and
match
statements, but none seem to cater for this seemingly simple requirement to
match a nested set of views to urls.
Maybe I''m missing a trick here - is there a better way to structure
hierarchical non-resource content but still use the facilities in the rails
framework? I guess I could combine rails with some other framework, but
would like to keep everything within rails if possible.
Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/rYPDjSBOxycJ.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hello all,
Don''t suppose anyone has a moment to give me a pointer on this one?
I''ve tried the following:
namespace "levelx" do
namespace "levely" do
namespace "levelz" do
root :to => ''levelz#index''
end
root :to => ''levely#index''
end
root :to => ''levelx#index''''
end
This provides default routes for each namespace, but you then can''t
access
any other controllers at each level of namespace. You can''t specify a
:controller segment, so adding match ":controller(/:action)" within
each
namespace block is not an option.
I''ve also tried:
match ''/levelx/levely/levelz/:controller(/:action)''
match ''/levelx/levely/levelz'' =>
''levelx/levely/levelz#index''
match ''/levelx/levely/:controller(/:action)''
match ''/levelx/levely'' =>
''levelx/levely#index''
match ''/levelx/:controller(/:action)''
match ''/levelx'' => ''levelx#index''
Which again seems to route index actions OK but not other controllers within
each namespace.
I''ve tried:
match ''/levelx/levely/levelz/:controller(/:action)'',
:controller =>
/levelx\/levely\/levelz*/
match ''/levelx/levely/:controller(/:action)'', :controller
=>
/levelx\/levely*/
match ''/levelx/:controller(/:action)'', :controller =>
/levelx\/levely*/
match ''/:controller(/:action)'', :controller => /levelx*/
Which doesn''t seem to work.
What I''m really after is the equivalent of the match
''/:controller(/:action)'' that will work with nested
namespaces. If
constraints can be applied to top level namespaces then so much the better.
Maybe time to admit defeat and abandon rails for this type of website, which
would be a shame since the rails framework is great for teh rest of the
resource-based parts of the site. More likely I''m just being thick.
Many thanks for any thoughts.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/1DW7luyPOWUJ.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi, The problem is very specific, so would be hard to quickly find a solution with the information you have posted. Would be good if you can post the routes file from your Rails 2 app which used to work fine and the best working version of routes file from Rails 3 app. You may also want to read up the guide on Rails 3 routing - http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html Read section - 3.11 - Route Globbing, that may do the trick for you. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/FCSkEkp1nhMJ. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi Chirag,
Thanks for the response.
Equivalent routes from rails 2 that seem to have worked fine are:
map.connect ''level1/level2/level3/:action'', :controller =>
''level1/
level2/level3''
map.connect ''level1/level2/:action'', :controller =>
''level1/level2''
map.connect '':controller/:action/:id''
Further messing around I came up with:
namespace "levelx" do
namespace "levely" do
namespace "levelz" do
match ''levelzcontrollerone(/:action)'' =>
''levelzcontrollerone#''
match '':action'' => ''#''
root :to => ''levelz#index''
end
match ''levelycontrollerone(/:action)'' =>
''levelycontrollerone#''
match '':action'' => ''#''
root :to => ''levely#index''
end
match ''levelxcontrollerone(/:action)'' =>
''levelxcontrollerone#''
match '':action'' => ''#''
root :to => ''levelx#index''
end
Which seems to work. rake routes gives:
levelx_levely_levelz /levelx/levely/levelz/levelzone(/:action)
(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/levely/levelz/levelzone"}
/levelx/levely/
levelz/:action(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/levely/
levelz"}
levelx_levely_levelz_root /levelx/levely/
levelz(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/levely/
levelz/levelz", :action=>"index"}
levelx_levely /levelx/levely/levelyone(/:action)
(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/levely/levelyone"}
/levelx/
levely/:action(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/
levely"}
levelx_levely_root /levelx/
levely(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/
levely/levely", :action=>"index"}
levelx /levelx/levelxone(/:action)
(.:format) {:controller=>"levelx/levelxone"}
/
levelx/:action(.:format)
{:controller=>"levelx"}
levelx_root /
levelx(.:format)
{:controller=>"levelx/levelx", :action=>"index"}
/:controller(/:action)(.:format)
Not sure if this is in any way sensible but seems to get the job done.
Thanks once again for your help
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
A direct conversion to the routes you had in Rails 2, would be something like this: match ''level1/level2/level3/:action'', :controller => ''level1/level2/level3'' match ''level1/level2/:action'', :controller => ''level1/level2'' match '':controller/:action/:id'' There would be a better way of doing this with namespace or scope, but if this works fine, then let it be. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/I6gzPHZfRBgJ. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:18 AM, tfp44 <ol.robinson-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello all, > > Don''t suppose anyone has a moment to give me a pointer on this one? > > I''ve tried the following: > > namespace "levelx" do > namespace "levely" do > namespace "levelz" do > root :to => ''levelz#index'' > end > root :to => ''levely#index'' > end > root :to => ''levelx#index'''' > end > > This provides default routes for each namespace, but you then can''t access > any other controllers at each level of namespace. You can''t specify a > :controller segment, so adding match ":controller(/:action)" within each > namespace block is not an option. > > I''ve also tried: > > match ''/levelx/levely/levelz/:controller(/:action)'' > match ''/levelx/levely/levelz'' => ''levelx/levely/levelz#index'' > match ''/levelx/levely/:controller(/:action)'' > match ''/levelx/levely'' => ''levelx/levely#index'' > match ''/levelx/:controller(/:action)'' > match ''/levelx'' => ''levelx#index'' > > Which again seems to route index actions OK but not other controllers > within each namespace. > > I''ve tried: > > match ''/levelx/levely/levelz/:controller(/:action)'', :controller => > /levelx\/levely\/levelz*/ > match ''/levelx/levely/:controller(/:action)'', :controller => > /levelx\/levely*/ > match ''/levelx/:controller(/:action)'', :controller => /levelx\/levely*/ > match ''/:controller(/:action)'', :controller => /levelx*/ > > Which doesn''t seem to work. > > What I''m really after is the equivalent of the match > ''/:controller(/:action)'' that will work with nested namespaces. If > constraints can be applied to top level namespaces then so much the better. > > Maybe time to admit defeat and abandon rails for this type of website, > which would be a shame since the rails framework is great for teh rest of > the resource-based parts of the site. More likely I''m just being thick. > > Many thanks for any thoughts. > > >As a Rails best practice, I would recommend that you don''t nest routes that are more than two levels deep. -Conrad> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/1DW7luyPOWUJ. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.