是,你可以将它们在collection
块嵌套块内的resources :posts
如下
resources :posts, :except => :destroy do
collection do
match 'page/:page' => 'posts#page'
match 'delete/:id' => 'posts#delete'
match 'undelete/:id' => 'posts#undelete'
match 'hide/:id' => 'posts#hide'
match 'unhide/:id' => 'posts#unhide'
end
end
这些路线不是很REST风格虽然。我可能会建议类似以下内容
resources :posts, :except => :destroy do
member do
get 'page/:page' => 'posts#page'
delete 'delete' => 'posts#delete'
put 'undelete' => 'posts#undelete'
put 'hide' => 'posts#hide'
put 'unhide' => 'posts#unhide'
end
end
这会创建更干净的路由,同时仍指向相同的控制器/操作。你将不得不修改你的应用程序指向正确的路线有点不同,以支持这种更被接受的行为,虽然。
GET /posts/:id/page/:page(.:format) posts#page
delete_post DELETE /posts/:id/delete(.:format) posts#delete
undelete_post PUT /posts/:id/undelete(.:format) posts#undelete
hide_post PUT /posts/:id/hide(.:format) posts#hide
unhide_post PUT /posts/:id/unhide(.:format) posts#unhide
posts GET /posts(.:format) posts#index
POST /posts(.:format) posts#create
new_post GET /posts/new(.:format) posts#new
edit_post GET /posts/:id/edit(.:format) posts#edit
post GET /posts/:id(.:format) posts#show
PUT /posts/:id(.:format) posts#update
啊,谢谢!后者正是我所期待的。我唯一的问题是,您修改了删除操作以发送HTTP DELETE,但它实际上并未删除我表中的任何内容,它只修改数据库中的is_deleted列。这仍然没问题,还是应该更改为GET? – bswinnerton
它绝对**不应该是'GET'。我个人认为它是一个'DELETE',因为从用户的角度来看,资源*被删除,但其他人会认为'PUT'更加RESTful。 – deefour