Route::controller deprecated in Laravel 5.3,
Now I want to design my routes but I don't know how can I do this without Route::controller because I don't want define Route::get for each route and I want handle the parameters in my controller .
for example, these are my routes :
http://domain.com/images/10/pic.jpg (in this route I need 10 as $file_id and pic.jpg as $file_name)
http://domain.com/images/crop/200x100/10/pic.jpg (in this route I need crop as $action, 200x100 as $size, 10 as $file_id and pic.jpg as $file_name)
How I can do it without Route::controller ?
Currently, the only way to create new routes is to use a resource controller (Route::resource()) or defining your own routes via Route::get,Route::post and so on.
There is no faster and non-deprecated method at the moment. Anyway, the Resource::controller() function might be extracted to another package, as Taylor Otwell stated in his upgrade guide.
I was faced the same dilemma as you, when the Route::controller was dropped with no obvious reason.
This is why I wrote a class called AdvancedRoute, which serves as a drop in replacement.
It can be used by simply replacing Route::controller with AdvancedRoute::controller like this:
AdvancedRoute::controller('customers','CustomerController');
Full information how to install and use find at the GitHub repo at:
https://github.com/lesichkovm/laravel-advanced-route
Related
I define route for update profile logic, when I used first logic It does not work but the use of second logic works fine. So I don't know what is the difference between those.
1. Route::post('/profile', 'ProfileController#update');
2. Route::post('/profile', 'ProfileController#update')->name('profile');
The only difference between them, the name,
so If you put in form action something like {{ route('profile') }} you mean: go to route that has name profile.
Read this for more details.
Routes with name eg Route::post('/profile', 'ProfileController#update')->name('profile');
can be accessed in blade using {{route('profile')}}
whereas the other one can only be accessed using url(). e.g
{{url('/profile')}}
The second one is a 'named route'. It allows you to reference your route by a name.
Laravel 5.7 Docs - Routing - Named Routes
Well the obvious difference is the added "->name('profile')" named route to your second line. You have tagged this post with laravel-5.7 so I have linked the documentation for this version: https://laravel.com/docs/5.7/routing#named-routes
It appears to me that perhaps you have some logic in the update function of your ProfileController like so:
if ($request->route()->named('profile')) {
//
}
Which would change the outcome of the request. Hope this helps, best regards.
I'm setting up a new route system.
Route::get('/{cat1Url}', 'CategoryController#showCat1')->name('showCat1');
Route::get('/{productUrl}', 'ProductController#showProduct')->name('showProduct');
My sef link is after "/"
But,
{{ route('showProduct',[$p->pr_url]) }}
This method not working with route name. Working only upside route.
I don't want use
"/cat/myVariable"
or
"/product/myVariable"
Can't I use route name to work this way?
What is the solution to this?
In this way, if you make a get request to /something the laravel you start from top of web.php file looking to a route that follows the pattern. Your both routes will follow that pattern, but the laravel will always, pass the first one to controller.
You have two options:
Put only one route, and inside the controller you switch to the appropriate function. But this isn't a great ideia, because this is the function of the Web.php.
Use the routes like the documentation recommend:
Route::get('/cat/{catId}', 'CategoryController#showCat')->name('showCat');
Route::get('/prod/{productId}', 'ProductController#showProduct')->name('showProduct');
and in Controller you make the appropriate handler of your Category or Product.
You will have to have a way to tell Laravel which url to be mapped to what otherwise it will always use the last defined route. So in your case calling /myVariable and /myVariable it will use the latest definition which is showProduct. The only other way is if you use regular expression to differentiate the variables. For example:
Route::get('/{cat1Url}', 'CategoryController#showCat1')
->name('showCat1')->where('cat1Url', 'cat-*');
Route::get('/{productUrl}', 'ProductController#showProduct')
->name('showProduct')->where('productUrl', 'prod-*');
This way your slugs need to start with what you define, but you cannot use just id as a numeric value for both.
If I want to create RESTful APIs, which one should I choose?
How do the URLs as index.php/id/1 work? I think it's a file path, not a URL.
If I want to get an image as abc.com/img/1.png, it may have conflicts with abc.com/img/{param}. How do I solve?
BTW, I use Laravel now.
Thanks so much.
The difference is in route model binding
https://laravel.com/docs/5.7/routing#route-model-binding
This allows you to get the model with the id that is passed into the route
So for example a route like this:
Route::get('users/{user}', 'UsersController#getUser');
Will allow you to do this in you method:
use App\User
public function getUser(User $user) {
return $user;
}
This means that you get the full record for the id that is in the route.
So your Questions:
1: I would use this for sending model id's
2: the variables in the route are passed in that order to the method allowing you to get access to them.
3: You will need to be careful with your routes as you can have conflicts. having said that Laravel does not use a traditional directory structure for storage. I believe that if you have a folder stucture of /public/img and that folder contains an img named 1.png it will get the image but I have not tested this.
I want to Route to my controller with alias but for readability, and less code I'd like to use Route::controller('/login','LoginController'). Is there a way to use both? Or is there any other way to reference a method in my controller if I use this Route::controller syntax?
I solved this rather easily. You can use the syntax Route::controller(...) and instead of using route('route_name') to get the route by alias use action(Controller#method). Although it would be still nice to have aliases.
just use resource route it will automatically create these routes:
index
create
show
edit
update
destroy
add this to routes.php
Route::resource('someroute', 'YourController');
you also can add exception for those 6 routes. can refer here
I'm trying using this:
Route::resource('users', 'UserController');
Route::controller('users', 'UserController');
When I'm using one of them - WORK,
otherwise - only resource work.
There is an option to using them both?
Which ever is on-top will take priority so if you put Route::controller on-top then that's the one that would work. I would post this as a comment but I don't have the rep to do it. Also why would you wanna use both of them at the same time?
Try moving Route::controller declaration above Route::resource:
Route::controller('users', 'UserController');
Route::resource('users', 'UserController');
The thing is that Laravel tries to match request with your defined routes by going from top to bottom and stops when it finds one.
localhost/users/example in your example actually hits show method in your UserController class as explained in documentation (see Actions Handled By Resource Controller).
Therefore Route::controller('users', 'UserController'); is ignored in this case.
I believe it's only working with one because once you use Route::resource(), all routes starting with users is going to be grabbed, and since Route::resource() does not work by prepending the action with the last segement in the uri (public function getUsers()), it's failing.
With your example provided, all you should need to use is Route::controller(). If there are some cases where that won't do, before it, add whatever routes you need using Route::get(), Route::post() or Route::any()
Route::resource() and Route::controller() were I believe not designed to work together and there shouldn't be much need to actually use them together.