So I’ve been gradually getting my feet wet with the new Rails 2.0 release.
Then I ran into the changes to ActionController::Resources#resource:
A singular name is given to map.resource. The default controller name is still taken from the plural name.
This means that if you have the following in your routes.rb.
ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
map.resource :session
end
Rails is going to look for a SessionsController not a SessionController. So
even though you’re using the singular version, #resource, Rails is expecting a
plural controller name.
This is terrible. I just recently discovered the beauty of #resource and singleton controllers and now Rails 2.0 assumes that all singleton resources map to plural named controllers.
One of my favorite idioms was to use a singular resource for allowing users to edit their password (I always put password editing on a page separate from editing the rest of a user’s info, try keeping password changes along side your other user info changes and see how ugly your code gets. A separate controller cleans things up nice and allows you stay with CRUD naming for all your actions).
ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
map.resources :users do |user|
user.resource :password
end
end
Goes from
class UsersController < ApplicationController
end
class PasswordController < ApplicationController
end
to
class UsersController < ApplicationController
end
class PasswordsController < ApplicationController
end
What trash.
I’ve refused to accept this new singular resource plural controller name style
and have resorted to specifying controller names in my routes.rb file.
ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
map.resources :users do |user|
user.resource :password, :controller => 'password'
end
end
Now I have to use this ugly hash of parameters to my #resource call (also
Rails when are you going to let me use symbols for controller names? Strings
are hideous and break up the flow of my code).
I might have to patch Rails or at least say I will and not do anything.
