[Feature Request] Nested route groups about route

[philipobenito]

It's not something that is planned for 2.0.0, however it may be something that we look at going forward.

[matthijsthoolen]

Do you think that it is something that coule be implemented without to much effort?

If so, I will try if I can implement it myself :)

-------- Original Message --------
From: Phil Bennett [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 01:14 PM
To: thephpleague/route [email protected]
Subject: Re: [route] Nested route groups (#96)
CC: Eragon666 [email protected]

It's not something that is planned for 2.0.0, however it maybe be something that we look at going forward.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#96 (comment)

[philipobenito]

I think there is probably quite a large level of complexity at first look, the issue here is that a nested group can then have a nested group, then that nested group can have a nested group, so there are considerations to be made around that, it also will probably be required to be explicitly defined as a nested group so that it can inherit the parents prefix.

More than happy for you to have a go at it, then we'll look through it and address any complexities for the next feature release.

[matthijsthoolen]

I will try to take a look at this feature in the Christmas holiday.

If you have any tips/recommendations or anything else please let me know!

And I will keep you updated in this issue ofcourse

[philipobenito]

👍

[alexrohleder]

And if the group method receive an array instead of a closure, as all mapping methods return a Route object that can alter the path attribute, the nesting can be done easily. eg.

$router->group('/admin', [
    $router->get('/', '...'),
    $router->group('/cms', [
        $router->get('/posts', '...')
    ])
]);

PHP will first register / and the inner /posts, so the inner group will change the /posts to /cms/posts, and at the end the outer group will prefix all these routes passed as parameter with /admin.

This idea is simple and needs a little refactoring, but will allow a big flexibility in registering routes. If accepted I could implement that and request a pull.

[philipobenito]

That would actually require an overhaul of the group system because using the closure, the routes are actually registered on the group object, not the router itself

[mbunge]

We could work with a level indicator, similar to transaction nesting levels. But in this case I would prefer a NestedRouteGroup extending the RouteGroup

[philipobenito]

I feel like the benefit this provides isn't worth the complexity it introduced. For the example above I think a nicer way of handling it for readability would be to have multiple groups anyway.