# Every controller has to be ended with \_controller? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [February 6, 2008, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345 "2008-02-06T23:06:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/1 "2008-02-06T23:06:01Z")
Hi there, I’m thinking here about this, if the controller are located inside the controllers folder, why should we name them with \_controller at the end? it’ll screw with the routing system if we get the ‘\_controller’ out. Is there any case I put some .rb on the controllers folder without being a controller? because from my point of view, if a controller ir located inside the controllers folder, it should be a controller. So, what do you think? I was just studying rails source and this question came to my mind. Maybe it’s just nonsense, but i think that not totally. Thanks, André Luis ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/2 "2008-02-06T23:47:20Z")
Good point, we don’t do blog\_model so why do we have to do blogs\_controller? On Feb 7, 2008 8:36 AM, Andreh L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > ## a controller? because from my point of view, if a controller ir located André Luis > > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/). > > > – Ryan B. > **[frozenplague.net](http://www.frozenplague.net)** > > This domain may be for sale! Feel free to add me to MSN and/or GTalk as this email. ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/3 "2008-02-07T00:36:11Z")
personally, i dislike multiple files with the same name in a project (ie: app/controllers/blog.rb and app/models/blog.rb) Some tabbed editor IDEs dont include paths in the tabs, which could make it somewhat confusing ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 12:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/4 "2008-02-07T00:57:21Z")
That’s not the case, I mean, you are forced to use \_controller. Yes, files with the same name sounds confusing. But it is redundant to call \_controller, when you are inside of the controller’s folder, like Ryan said, we don’t have a blog\_model. I think that the controllers’ names should be more flexible. it’s just my what I’m thinking, of course we can find a lot reasons to let the \_controller stay. All the .rb on the controllers folder are controllers anyway. Reacher wrote: > personally, i dislike multiple files with the same name in a project > (ie: app/controllers/blog.rb and app/models/blog.rb) Some tabbed > editor IDEs dont include paths in the tabs, which could make it > somewhat confusing ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 12:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/5 "2008-02-07T12:30:12Z")
Andreh L. wrote: > That’s not the case, I mean, you are forced to use \_controller. > > Yes, files with the same name sounds confusing. > But it is redundant to call \_controller, when you are inside of the > controller’s folder, like Ryan said, we don’t have a blog\_model. > > I think that the controllers’ names should be more flexible. > it’s just my what I’m thinking, of course we can find a lot reasons to > let the \_controller stay. > > All the .rb on the controllers folder are controllers anyway. > > Reacher wrote: > > > personally, i dislike multiple files with the same name in a project > > (ie: app/controllers/blog.rb and app/models/blog.rb) Some tabbed > > editor IDEs dont include paths in the tabs, which could make it > > somewhat confusing I believe its a namespace issue, can’t have multiple classes with the the same name. Just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 1:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/6 "2008-02-07T13:50:28Z")
## It wouldn’t BE with the same name if people named their controllers correctly! It’s not blog\_controller, its blogs\_controller. Meaning the class would be Blogs and not Blog! I’m all for this idea. Ryan B. > **[frozenplague.net](http://www.frozenplague.net)** > > This domain may be for sale! Feel free to add me to MSN and/or GTalk as this email. ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/7 "2008-02-07T17:02:33Z")
On 2/7/08, Russ J. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I believe its a namespace issue, can’t have multiple classes with the > the same name. Just a guess. Not in the same module/class, and since models, and controllers. are in the outermost ruby namespace, they have to have different names. but there’s a further reason, I think. Or actually two. 1. Rails uses the convention of mapping names in context, so, for example in a routes.rb, means that the controller class is FooController 1. Rails autoloading. Note that Rails doesn’t require you to use ‘require’ to load code. When FooController is mentioned in running code, and it hasn’t been loaded, rails catches the exception raised by the missing constant and looks for the code by searching for a fill in one of the directories on the load path named ‘foo\_controller.rb’ – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/8 "2008-02-07T14:38:58Z")
I’ll second the idea that it is a namespace issue. That would also explain why we have blog\_helper and blog\_test and blog\_spec in their respective folders. On this note though, how dose everyone feel about the talk in the core to move application.rb to application\_controller.rb? (http:// [groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse\_thread/thread/](http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/) 24364f3ed58bb77b?hl=en) I think the reasoning behind that change will answer Andreh’s question. ---
**Author:** ![andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@andreh](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/andreh)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/every-controller-has-to-be-ended-with-controller/128345/9 "2008-02-07T17:32:22Z")
yes, if you take a look at routing.rb at rails source you’ll see that it searches for all .rb files in the controller directory that ends with \_controller.rb. What I had in mind when I post this topic was that I was forced to use the \_controller at the end, even knowing that all the .rb files located there would be controllers. Knowing that all the files there are controllers, why put the controller? Ok, using the \_controller is a good thing to maintain control of the Controllers, and I agree with that. and keep about namespace too, having many files with ‘same’ names isn’t good. It could be a mess. about application.rb, I asked myself why application hasn’t the \_controller at the end. I think that is take all the \_controllers out, or put the \_controller at every controller, even application. following the talk in rails core, I found this ticket [http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10570](http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10570) about application.rb not following tha name convention, and it’s consequences. Thanks.