# Nested Dynamic Routes

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [June 22, 2007, 6:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489 "2007-06-22T06:22:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 6:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/1 "2007-06-22T06:22:24Z")

</div>

Hi,

I have a url scheme where I would like to include a public and private  
interface, and I have a nested resource for it.

The two schemes are

/my/books/pages  
/:username/books/pages

I would like to sperate the books and pages controllers into  
MyBooks, MyPages #=\> the user here will always be the currently logged  
in  
user  
and  
PublicBooks, PublicPages #=\> The users books will be whatever user is  
specified.

All public stuff is read only, although there will be a further nested  
resource on both (comments) that should be mapped to one controller to  
controll all comments, read and write.

I’m thinking at the moment that this will eliminate a lot of messy  
controller logic that tries to decide if I can access things or not, and  
tries to decide what user the context of the request is in etc.

The messiest that I can see this getting is if the user is accessing  
thier  
own book through a public interface and wants to say edit it. In this  
case  
I’m thinking of just re-directing to the edit action of the  
MyBooksController

I really don’t have a clue how to proceed here. Here’s what I’m  
thinking  
but I don’t believe this works.

map.resources :books :path\_prefix =\> ‘my’, :controller =\>  
‘my\_books\_controller’ do  
books.resources :pages, :controller =\> ‘my\_pages\_controller’ do  
pages.resources :comments  
end  
end

map.resources :books :path\_prefix =\> ‘/:username’, :controller =\>  
‘public\_books\_controller’ do  
books.resources :pages, :controller =\> ‘public\_pages\_controller’ do  
pages.resources :comments  
end  
end

Can anyone give a little advice please? Is this even a good way to go,  
or  
should I be looking elsewhere for a solution?

Cheers  
Daniel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 8:03am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/2 "2007-06-22T08:03:32Z")

</div>

Hey,

I’m assuming that you’re asking if using different controllers for  
those routes is the way to go.

Whenever I’m presented with those sorts of decisions, the strategy I  
reach for the most is “a separate controller for each map.resource(s)”.

It’s not always the strategy that I _finish_ with, but I find it’s  
always the best starting point.

Doing it like this stops me from over-generalizing too early. Once  
the controllers have all been written with their specific use-cases  
in mind (“Make it work”), everything is laid out in front of me. Any  
ways I can make things DRYer are blindingly obvious (“Make it right”).

Sometimes I’ll decide to pull something back into a single do-  
everything controller. Other times I’ll just create a few mixins or  
maybe even an inheritance hierarchy to reduce duplication.

Nearly all of the time I’m just really grateful I resisted the  
temptation to start off saying “hey, these are the same so I can just  
use one controller!”.

HTH,  
Trevor

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 8:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/3 "2007-06-22T08:23:34Z")

</div>

On 6/22/07, Trevor S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> Hey,
> 
> I’m assuming that you’re asking if using different controllers for  
> those routes is the way to go.

Whenever I’m presented with those sorts of decisions, the strategy I

> Sometimes I’ll decide to pull something back into a single do-  
> everything controller. Other times I’ll just create a few mixins or  
> maybe even an inheritance hierarchy to reduce duplication.
> 
> Nearly all of the time I’m just really grateful I resisted the  
> temptation to start off saying “hey, these are the same so I can just  
> use one controller!”.
> 
> HTH,  
> Trevor

I think what your suggesting is that what I’m contemplating isn’t too  
bad of  
an idea 😉

I guess what I’m really asking is not so much if the urls are right.  
But if  
the concept of splitting the controllers like this is correct for what  
I’m  
trying to achive. Ie having MY user resource, and a public interface to  
OTHERs resources.

If this is the way to go. I would like to generate the urls I listed  
since  
I think they are self explanitory. So then in that case are these  
routes on  
the right track?

/my/books/pages  
/:username/books/pages

map.resources :books :path\_prefix =\> ‘my’, :controller =\>  
‘my\_books\_controller’ do  
books.resources :pages, :controller =\> ‘my\_pages\_controller’ do  
pages.resources :comments  
end  
end

map.resources :books :path\_prefix =\> ‘/:username’, :controller =\>  
‘public\_books\_controller’ do  
books.resources :pages, :controller =\> ‘public\_pages\_controller’ do  
pages.resources :comments  
end  
end

Thanx for you help

Daniel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 7:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/4 "2007-06-22T19:23:10Z")

</div>

On 21-Jun-07, at 11:22 PM, Daniel N wrote:

> I think what your suggesting is that what I’m contemplating isn’t  
> too bad of an idea 😉
> 
> I guess what I’m really asking is not so much if the urls are  
> right. But if the concept of splitting the controllers like this  
> is correct for what I’m trying to achive. Ie having MY user  
> resource, and a public interface to OTHERs resources.

Yeah, what I’m saying is: absolutely yes, start by splitting the  
controllers. You may end up consolidating them once you’ve fleshed  
everything out, but _start_ by coding the controllers to deal with  
their specific use-cases in mind.

Once that’s done, the opportunities for doing this “right” will be  
staring you right in the face because your _code_ will be telling you  
how it should be architected, not some random guy spouting rubbish on  
a mailing list 🙂

I.e. you may look at the code and say “gee, all my urls should  
be /:username/books etc 'cause the only conditional would be a quick  
check to see if the current user name == :username to determine  
whether they can edit this resource”. You won’t know that for  
certain until all your moving parts are actually doing what they are  
supposed to do.

> If this is the way to go. I would like to generate the urls I  
> listed since I think they are self explanitory. So then in that  
> case are these routes on the right track?
> 
> /my/books/pages  
> /:username/books/pages

Don’t forget to make sure a user can’t use the word ‘my’ as their  
username 🙂

HTH,  
Trevor

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2007, 9:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/5 "2007-06-23T09:36:24Z")

</div>

On 6/23/07, Trevor S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> > is correct for what I’m trying to achive. Ie having MY user  
> > how it should be architected, not some random guy spouting rubbish on  
> > If this is the way to go. I would like to generate the urls I  
> > HTH,  
> > Trevor

Thanx for the explianation.

At this stage it doesn’t seem as simple as a quick check because the  
required permission set makes it all a bit nasty together. Having said  
that, I currently have them all together and it smells a bit. Hence the  
question.

Thanx again.  
Daniel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2007, 4:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/6 "2007-06-23T16:30:07Z")

</div>

Sorry if this comes twice. I’m having some trouble with gmail

On 6/23/07, Daniel N [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> > > too bad of an idea 😉  
> > > their specific use-cases in mind.  
> > > certain until all your moving parts are actually doing what they are
> 
> required permission set makes it all a bit nasty together. Having said  
> that, I currently have them all together and it smells a bit. Hence the  
> question.
> 
> Thanx again.  
> Daniel

I’ve created a branch to modify my code to reflect this, and it has  
quite  
suddenly occured to me that this will make views very difficult to do  
and  
keep them DRY. I would need to duplicate my views for each controller  
because of the named routes.

For example and forms where I have

\<% form\_for @book do |f| %\>

No longer work since they look for a book\_path. If I then change this  
to a  
my\_book\_path in the routes, then my new public controller will not be  
able  
to use it.

This isn’t so bad for forms, since the public controller doesn’t have  
write  
access to anything and so these should never be rendered for it.

Where the issue lies is in the link generation. e.g.

\<%= link\_to @book.title, book\_url( @book ) -%\> needs to become  
my\_book\_url(  
@book ) OR public\_book\_url( @book ) depending on how it is accessed.

If I have to duplicate my views, or have a bunch of logic in every time  
I  
want to set a link, I don’t think I will change over since I think this  
would be messier in the long run.

Any ideas on how to avoid this?

Thanx  
Daniel

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 4:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/7 "2007-06-25T04:08:28Z")

</div>

Hey,

comments inline:

On 23-Jun-07, at 7:27 AM, Daniel N wrote:

> this to a my\_book\_path in the routes, then my new public controller  
> will not be able to use it.
> 
> This isn’t so bad for forms, since the public controller doesn’t  
> have write access to anything and so these should never be rendered  
> for it.

Cool, so we can just ignore that one.

> Where the issue lies is in the link generation. e.g.
> 
> \<%= link\_to @book.title, book\_url( @book ) -%\> needs to become  
> my\_book\_url( @book ) OR public\_book\_url( @book ) depending on how  
> it is accessed.
> 
> If I have to duplicate my views, or have a bunch of logic in every  
> time I want to set a link, I don’t think I will change over since I  
> think this would be messier in the long run.

Okay, first I’ll give you the “roll your own, low-impact” version.

The important thing to remember is that book\_url etc are just  
methods. I’m guessing that you’re not going to permit editing and  
deleting so really it’s just book\_path(book) and books\_path() that  
are important at the moment. Note that I didn’t say book\_url -  
because you really only need to use that for redirects (which implies  
editing, and the public controller doesn’t need that).

Anyhow, in the public controller, you just do:

class PublicBooksController  
protected  
def book\_path(\*args)  
public\_book\_path(\*args)  
end  
def books\_path(\*args)  
public\_books\_path(\*args)  
end  
helper\_method :book\_path, :books\_path  
end

So any time a request that’s being served by PublicBooksController  
sees a book\_path or books\_path call, it calls the relevant method.  
Now MyBooksController and PublicBooksController can use the same  
partials.

Now, there _are_ times when you want to re-use views completely  
(rather than just sharing partials), and when it’s much more than  
just book\_path or books\_path that you’re calling. If this is one of  
those cases then I’ve got a plugin called resource\_fu which makes  
wiring that up much easier:

[http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/resource\_fu](http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/resource_fu)

But if the code I quote above is enough for you then I’d just stick  
with that.

HTH,  
Trevor

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/47e85d/32.png) [@liquid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/liquid)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2007, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nested-dynamic-routes/107489/8 "2007-06-23T16:28:06Z")

</div>

On 6/23/07, Daniel N [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> > > too bad of an idea 😉  
> > > their specific use-cases in mind.  
> > > certain until all your moving parts are actually doing what they are
> 
> required permission set makes it all a bit nasty together. Having said  
> that, I currently have them all together and it smells a bit. Hence the  
> question.
> 
> Thanx again.  
> Daniel

I’ve created a branch to modify my code to reflect this, and it has  
quite  
suddenly occured to me that this will make views very difficult to do  
and  
keep them DRY. I would need to duplicate my views for each controller  
because of the named routes.

For example and forms where I have

\<% form\_for @book do |f| %\>

No longer work since they look for a book\_path. If I then change this  
to a  
my\_book\_path in the routes, then my new public controller will not be  
able  
to use it.

This isn’t so bad for forms, since the public controller doesn’t have  
write  
access to anything and so these should never be rendered for it.

Where the issue lies is in the link generation. e.g.

\<%= link\_to @book.title, book\_url( @book ) -%\> needs to become  
my\_book\_url(  
@book ) OR public\_book\_url( @book ) depending on how it is accessed.

If I have to duplicate my views, or have a bunch of logic in every time  
I  
want to set a link, I don’t think I will change over since I think this  
would be messier in the long run.

Any ideas on how to avoid this?

Thanx  
Daniel