Namespaced controller question

I have a utility controller that has an action in it. Before I changed
to namespaced controllers, I could access the action with:

/utility/my_action

There are no resources associated with the controller, so I’m assuming
the stock route

map.connect ‘:controller/:action/:id’

picked it up. However, for reasons I don’t want to go into detail about,
I moved the utility controller into a namespace (Web), and the route
started failing. Ultimately, I added

map.connect ‘web/utility/:action’, :controller => ‘web/utility’

to routes.rb and it started working again. I do not understand why I had
to specify ‘web/utility’ in the map.connect statement. Why didn’t the
stock map.connect pick it up? And why wouldn’t

map.connect ‘web/:controller/:action’

work?

Thanks,
Phillip

On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 04:57 +0100, Phillip K. wrote:

picked it up. However, for reasons I don’t want to go into detail about,

work?


assuming that the first line of
app/controllers/web/utility_controller.rb looks like

class Web::UtilityController < ApplicationController

I don’t think you really need to do a whole lot with routes.rb at all
(the views would necessarily have to follow a similar pathing in
app/views/web/utility) but I also wonder whether you are using the
plural utilities instead of the singular utility, etc.

Craig


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Craig W. wrote:

On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 04:57 +0100, Phillip K. wrote:

picked it up. However, for reasons I don’t want to go into detail about,

work?


assuming that the first line of
app/controllers/web/utility_controller.rb looks like

class Web::UtilityController < ApplicationController

No, it’s actually

class Web::UtilityController < Web::BaseController

where

class Web::BaseController < ApplicationController

I don’t think you really need to do a whole lot with routes.rb at all

I didn’t think so either. That’s why I was surprised when the default
route of

map.connect ':controller/:action/:id

didn’t work. But since I’m not passing an id to this action, I even
tried

map.connect ':controller/:action

but that didn’t work either.

(the views would necessarily have to follow a similar pathing in
app/views/web/utility)

Right. I got all that taken care of. I’ve had success in the past using
namespaced controllers, but this is the first time I have done so with
one that wasn’t a resource. I’ve never had any difficulty when I have
done this something like this in routes:

map.namespace :web do |web|
web.resources :pages
end

I don’t really want to resource this utility controller as it is just
for actions that do little odds and ends that need to be done, but don’t
really belong anywhere else. The particular case in question is storing
the current state of an expandable menu structure. As the user navigates
from page to page, I restore the menu to the “current” state so the user
doesn’t have to keep expanding things over and over. It’s stored in the
session, not the database, so I didn’t want to put it on the People
(user) controller.

but I also wonder whether you are using the
plural utilities instead of the singular utility, etc.

No, just singular. Since it’s not a resource, it makes more sense to me
to have it singular. Much like HomeController.

Thanks for your input!

Peace.

On Mar 7, 3:57 am, Phillip K. [email protected] wrote:

picked it up. However, for reasons I don’t want to go into detail about,
I moved the utility controller into a namespace (Web), and the route
started failing. Ultimately, I added

The only thing I’ve noticed with namespaced controllers like that and
the :controller/:action/:id default route is that a restart seems to
be required to pick up new controllers.

Fred

Frederick C. wrote:

On Mar 7, 3:57�am, Phillip K. [email protected] wrote:

picked it up. However, for reasons I don’t want to go into detail about,
I moved the utility controller into a namespace (Web), and the route
started failing. Ultimately, I added

The only thing I’ve noticed with namespaced controllers like that and
the :controller/:action/:id default route is that a restart seems to
be required to pick up new controllers.

Fred

Unfortunately, there were many restarts, and not a single one of them
seemed to help. :slight_smile:

Oh well. It is working. I just wanted to try to understand why it didn’t
work the other way.

Peace.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs