Question

When dealing with a collection resource, I like to use the plural for the index (ie. list) page (viewing many objects), and singular for the other pages (create/update/delete one object).

In order to do so, I seem to have to create my routes like so:

map.objects 'objects.:format', :controller => :object, :action => :index, :conditions => { :method => :get }
map.resources :object, :controller => :object, :except => :index

This creates routes like so:

     objects GET    /objects(.:format)          {:action=>"index", :controller=>"object"}
object_index POST   /object(.:format)           {:action=>"create", :controller=>"object"}
  new_object GET    /object/new(.:format)       {:action=>"new", :controller=>"object"}
 edit_object GET    /object/:id/edit(.:format)  {:action=>"edit", :controller=>"object"}
      object GET    /object/:id(.:format)       {:action=>"show", :controller=>"object"}
             PUT    /object/:id(.:format)       {:action=>"update", :controller=>"object"}
             DELETE /object/:id(.:format)       {:action=>"destroy", :controller=>"object"}

It works, but it seems like I’m using an extra line in my routes file (to explicitly specify the index route) when I shouldn’t have to. Is there a way to do what I want in one route? Or, alternately, is there a reason not to route this way?

Answer 1

RESTful routing is designed in such a way that you’re scoping down what it is you want to do. Say you go to http://example.com/objects. Here, you’re telling the site you want a list objects.

Now when you go to http://example.com/objects/2 you’re telling it you want to see the object with identifier of 2 in that list (or resource) of objects.

Finally, when you go to http://example.com/objects/2/edit you’re saying you want to find the object again with identifier of 2 but this time you would like to edit it rather than view it.

By going against the grain like you have suggested in routing helpers you will be causing a tremendous amount of unnecessary pain for yourself and for anybody else reading your code.

However if you do choose to go this path (again, I advise against it) then yes, defining two routes is the only way.