RESTfully Nesting Resource Routes with Single Identifiers

In my Rails app I have a fairly standard has_many relationship between two entities. A Foo has zero or more Bars; a Bar belongs to exactly one Foo. Both Foo and Bar are identified by a single integer ID value. These values are unique across all of their respective instances.

Bar is existence dependent on Foo: it makes no sense to have a Bar without a Foo.

There's two ways to RESTfully references instances of these classes. Given a Foo.id of "100" and a Bar.id of "200":

1. Reference each Foo and Bar through their own "top-level" URL routes, like so:

   • /foo/100
   • /bar/200

2. Reference Bar as a nested resource through its instance of Foo:

   • /foo/100
   • /foo/100/bar/200

I like the nested routes in #2 as it more closely represents the actual dependency relationship between the entities. However, it does seem to involve a lot of extra work for very little gain. Assuming that I know about a particular Bar, I don't need to be told about a particular Foo; I can derive that from the Bar itself. In fact, I probably should be validating the routed Foo everywhere I go (so that you couldn't do /foo/150/bar/200, assuming Bar 200 is not assigned to Foo 150). Ultimately, I don't see what this brings me.

So, are there any other arguments for or against these two routing schemes?

Point of Clarification

I'm concerned mostly about RESTful updates/shows/deletes to particular Bars. For getting a list of Bars for a specific Foo (开发者_StackOverflowwhich is usually the "index" action in Rails) it makes perfect sense to have a nested route such as /foo/100/bar. The page at this route could just as easily link to /bar/x as /foo/100/bar/x though.

---

You're looking for shallow routes. As you pointed out, the idea of having a deeply nested route for things like creates, updates is unnecessary since you are targeting the desired record directly.

I have never actually done the shallow routing thing so I'll pass on the railscast episode where Ryan Bates explains it probably better than I could: 139 Nested Resources.

Edit: You can read up a little more on the guides for routing 3.8.4.

---

As you already know, every item has to have a unique address. I would suggest that the shorter and easier the address is, the better for everyone involved - your routing code, your client apps, etc. If you can identify a Bar by its unique ID, I would probably specify only that in the URL.

You don't need to lose the semantic information about the Bar's assignment to a Foo, though. That can be part of the representation.

As an enhancement, you could allow the client to address Bar 200 as /foo/100/bar/200, but then redirect to the preferred /bar/200/ address, using, e.g., a 303 ("See Other") response.

---

Rails' shallow nesting gives us the best of both worlds: it lets us have Foo-specific routes where it makes sense (create, new, index) and Bar-only routes otherwise (show, edit, update, destroy).

Unfortunately, the new routing DSL in Rails 3 (which I'm using) does not support shallow routing yet (as of Beta 3). It appears to be in the works but it's not functional for today.

However, you can fake it by mapping the resource twice, once nested and once shallow:

resources :foo do
  resources :bar, :only => [:index, :new, :create]    
end
resources :bar, :only => [:show, :edit, :update, :destroy]

This will tide me over until the :shallow option is up and running again.

---

Personally, if each Bar is dependent on a Foo, option #2 makes more sense. For example, if Foo is a blog and Bar is a post, it is far more logical to access a particular post at example.bloghosting.com/blog/1/post/2 than example.bloghosting.com/post/21.

Do do this with the latest version of Rails:

class Food < ActiveRecord::Base
    has_many :bars
end

class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
    belongs_to :foo
end

Then, in the Rails router (/config/routes.rb):

map.resources :foos do |foo|
    foo.resource :bars
end

For more information, see Rails Routing from the Outside In and the Rails API Documentation.