Re: Proposal finished Network

Le 2 mars 07 à 21:05, James Stewart a écrit :

> On Mar 2, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
>> Le 2 mars 07 à 19:18, James Stewart a écrit :
>>> On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Bertrand Mansion
wrote:
>>>> In Rails and ZF and others, the router
object is indeed routing:  
>>>> it takes the url and automatically deduces
a 'controller' and an  
>>>> 'action', even if they were not defined in
the url, then perform  
>>>> the action within the controller. While
this is handy if you  
>>>> have a framework that was made to work this
way, it's not very  
>>>> flexible because there is a lot more you
can do with an url than  
>>>> just routing like this. Furthermore, in
such frameworks, AFAIK  
>>>> (but I might be wrong), you always end up
with urls like these:  
>>>> http:
//example.com/controller/action/arguments. This is also
a  
>>>> limitation IMO.
>>>
>>> I've not used ZF, but that's not the case in
rails. The default  
>>> route is
>>>
>>> map.connect ':controller/:action/:id'
>>>
>>> but that can be removed or replaced with a wide
variety of other  
>>> options. eg. One I often use in location-driven
sites is:
>>>
>>> map.connect 'zip/:id' , :controller =>
'locations', :action => 'zip'
>>   ^^^
>> Just a question here, what is this map object ?
>
> In rails, that statement would be in your
config/routes.rb file and  
> would come inside a block, so the full declaration
would be:
>
>
>
> ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
>
> 	map.connect 'zip/:id' , :controller => 'locations',
:action => 'zip'
>
> 	# Declare any other routes in here too
>
> end

I figured that. I was just wondering why you named it 'map'
and not  
router or routes ?

--
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

On Mar 2, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
> Le 2 mars 07 à 21:05, James Stewart a écrit :
>> On Mar 2, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Bertrand Mansion
wrote:
>>> Le 2 mars 07 à 19:18, James Stewart a écrit :
>>>> On Mar 2, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Bertrand
Mansion wrote:
>>>>> In Rails and ZF and others, the router
object is indeed  
>>>>> routing: it takes the url and
automatically deduces a  
>>>>> 'controller' and an 'action', even if
they were not defined in  
>>>>> the url, then perform the action within
the controller. While  
>>>>> this is handy if you have a framework
that was made to work  
>>>>> this way, it's not very flexible
because there is a lot more  
>>>>> you can do with an url than just
routing like this.  
>>>>> Furthermore, in such frameworks, AFAIK
(but I might be wrong),  
>>>>> you always end up with urls like these:
http://example.com/ 
>>>>> controller/action/arguments. This is
also a limitation IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I've not used ZF, but that's not the case
in rails. The default  
>>>> route is
>>>>
>>>> map.connect ':controller/:action/:id'
>>>>
>>>> but that can be removed or replaced with a
wide variety of other  
>>>> options. eg. One I often use in
location-driven sites is:
>>>>
>>>> map.connect 'zip/:id' , :controller =>
'locations', :action =>  
>>>> 'zip'
>>>   ^^^
>>> Just a question here, what is this map object
?
>>
>> In rails, that statement would be in your
config/routes.rb file  
>> and would come inside a block, so the full
declaration would be:
>>
>>
>>
>> ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
>>
>> 	map.connect 'zip/:id' , :controller =>
'locations', :action => 'zip'
>>
>> 	# Declare any other routes in here too
>>
>> end
>
> I figured that. I was just wondering why you named it
'map' and not  
> router or routes ?

Cause that's the default Rails name in that context and I
didn't see  
any reason to change it.

I guess DHH chose it because he's saying

_map_ this _route_ to these parameters.

The Rails dispatcher will then receive the parameters and
pass the  
request to the specified controller.

James.

-- 
James Stewart
Play: http://james.ant
hropiccollective.org
Work: http://jystewart.net/pr
ocess/