Resourceful URL generation about framework

[niallobrien]

+1. Would be awesome to have.
Perhaps URL::resource(resource route, method, parameters) would be better as the methods in our controller class are not prefixed with the resource name?
Just a thought.

[JeffreyWay]

Shawn - do you think something like this would even be necessary, if the resourceful controller generator automatically created the named routes? I think I might prefer to stick with:

$url = URL::to_route( 'edit_user_path', array($id) );

...One less new thing to learn, and fully readable.

[ShawnMcCool]

Yea, I think you're right.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Jeffrey Way [email protected]:

Shawn - do you think something like this would even be necessary, if the
resourceful controller generator automatically created the named routes? I
think I might prefer to stick with:

$url = URL::to_route( 'edit_user_path', array($id) );

...One less new thing to learn, and fully readable.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/37#issuecomment-12221088.

Shawn McCool | Big Name
[email protected]
heybigname.com

[niallobrien]

I agree, providing we have named routes for resources. Also means that Meido's HTML package can still be used to create links.

[taylorotwell]

Coming back around to this getting ready to implement something. What do you guys think about using "dot" syntax for the route names on resourceful routes?

Like...

URL::route('user.edit', [1]);

URL::route('user'); // would point to index...

Also planning on implementing nested resources, so like:

URL::route('magazine.ads.edit', [1, 2]); // 1 being the magazine ID and 2 being the ad ID

[taylorotwell]

I suggest dots because we use those throughout the framework for other things and to indicate nesting, etc.

[ShawnMcCool]

I don't think that it's a bad convention. If you create a new convention for every type of thing then you're going to run out of delimiters quickly.

[niallobrien]

@taylorotwell Am I correct in assuming that we reference the controller method? Eg. URL::route('user.destroy', [1]); ? Just to clarify, routing to the action, not a named route variant.

[franzliedke]

This looks cool. And I agree, dots feel right.

[taylorotwell]

@niallobrien the name happens to match the controller action, yeah, but it's a true named route. I just thought it would be convenient if they matched the action names.

[JeffreyWay]

I think that would work just fine. My only concern might relate to whether it confuses people. For URL::route, they'd use dot notation (preferred). For URL::action, they'd use @. Not a big deal, though.

Or, I wonder which would be considered more readable/recognizable by the community:

URL::route('user.create'); 

// or

URL::route('create_user');

Either way, I think both fit nicely.

[niallobrien]

Good point @JeffreyWay. People are used to @ representing a controller action.

[taylorotwell]

Using @ could still be a tad confusing because it's not really generating anything from a controller action (even though it kinda looks that way), it's a true named route. I think we'll just stick with dots and see how it's received.

[taylorotwell]

This has been implemented. Resource routes also use wildcards matching the resource names so that they may be easily used with Route::model. Also, nested resources are now supported using "dot" syntax as well:

Route::resource('magazine.photo', 'PhotoController');

[raftalks]

@taylorotwell I noted that due to this change, I am not able to workout my api routes which is actually segmented under "api/" path for all my resources, and it is now that route::resource() no longer accept slash.
Is it possible to workout a solution as I have proposed here #181 and #170 was also taken note of this issue.

[GaryJones]

Resource routes also use wildcards matching the resource names so that they may be easily used with Route::model

Does that explain #182?