3 ms·

I'd be curious what hand-crafted URLs you feel aren't possible with the new Rails 3 router. We've gone far to allow all kinds of hand-crafted urls. For example,

by dhh 16y ago

I'd be curious what hand-crafted URLs you feel aren't possible with the new Rails 3 router. We've gone far to allow all kinds of hand-crafted urls. For example, here's an example: get 'something/fun/:id', :to => "controller#action" You can map just about anything that falls outside of the conventions with a variety of that.

eob 16y ago
At that point, I suppose it is just a matter of taste: should the routes be specified inside each controller class, or should they be specified in a separate configuration file. The over-engineer in me likes the way Rails 3 does it. That way I can pretend that my code is reusable, as the URL is decoupled from the code that eventually implements its handler. But I suppose there is also something nice about a controller which self-defines the way in which it can be accessed.
- _pius 16y ago
  The over-engineer in me likes the way Rails 3 does it. That way I can pretend that my code is reusable, as the URL is decoupled from the code that eventually implements its handler. You don't have to pretend ... it actually is reusable. I don't get what's "over-engineer"ed about it.
  - binspace 16y ago
    I don't understand how a monolithic route mapping layer & a separate resource layer is more reusable than a modular resource + route layer. Care to explain? I find the Sinatra approach leads to less code and less complexity, especially for larger apps. This is because it is easy to extract middleware using Sinatra, since I break up separate resources anyways, instead of the single Application object.
  - dkubb 16y ago
    Whenever I've tried to reuse the same controller for two URLs, I usually end up with some conditional logic within the controller to handle difference in parameters available from the URL. I think a better approach would've been for me to subclass one from the other, or have a common parent class, and then handle the parameter differences within each subclass. At that point you'd end up with a 1:1 mapping between controller class and URL anyway.
    - mikek85 16y ago
      That 1:1 mapping is a good thing, but I don't think that's a reason to completely do-away with routing altogether. Sticking the route in the controller just makes the code harder to follow.

by dhh 16y ago

eob 16y ago

At that point, I suppose it is just a matter of taste: should the routes be specified inside each controller class, or should they be specified in a separate configuration file. The over-engineer in me likes the way Rails 3 does it. That way I can pretend that my code is reusable, as the URL is decoupled from the code that eventually implements its handler. But I suppose there is also something nice about a controller which self-defines the way in which it can be accessed.

_pius 16y ago
The over-engineer in me likes the way Rails 3 does it. That way I can pretend that my code is reusable, as the URL is decoupled from the code that eventually implements its handler. You don't have to pretend ... it actually is reusable. I don't get what's "over-engineer"ed about it.
- binspace 16y ago
  I don't understand how a monolithic route mapping layer & a separate resource layer is more reusable than a modular resource + route layer. Care to explain? I find the Sinatra approach leads to less code and less complexity, especially for larger apps. This is because it is easy to extract middleware using Sinatra, since I break up separate resources anyways, instead of the single Application object.
- dkubb 16y ago
  Whenever I've tried to reuse the same controller for two URLs, I usually end up with some conditional logic within the controller to handle difference in parameters available from the URL. I think a better approach would've been for me to subclass one from the other, or have a common parent class, and then handle the parameter differences within each subclass. At that point you'd end up with a 1:1 mapping between controller class and URL anyway.
  - mikek85 16y ago
    That 1:1 mapping is a good thing, but I don't think that's a reason to completely do-away with routing altogether. Sticking the route in the controller just makes the code harder to follow.