then why was REST invented in the first place? or is it a convetional thing? or is it really "better"
On Apr 15, 11:44 am, Michael Pavling <pavl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 April 2010 06:38, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote: > > > Or add a virtual attribute to the object that indicates whether > > confirmation is required. > > It's executing the confirmation process that seems to be troubling the > OP, not whether it's needed or not. > > > A second controller is unnecessary and IMHO > > not particularly RESTful. > > > OTOH, there is nothing unRESTful about having extra controller actions > > if your application needs them. The big 7 actions are not magical. > > Urm... if by this you mean the names of which are given to the 7 (of > the eight possible which are normally used) are not magical, and > instead of "new" you could have "confirm", you are correct. > But how would you represent two actions which both handled a POST with > an ID while still maintaining REST? You can't have 9 controller > actions and be RESTful (unless I'm missing something about the > principles, which I'd be happy to learn). AIUI you can PUT, POST, GET, > DELETE with or without an ID, and that gives you eight methods. > > If you want REST, you'll need a separate controller (or I need a > little re-education). If you're happy to forego REST, use the method > Andy suggested (it's simpler this way). Either way works fine. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
