Someone can please explain what is the difference between RESTful Controllers and Resource Controllers in Laravel ? I also have some Questions-
when should I use RESTful Controllers and when Resource Controllers?
Is there any naming convention Of Controller action for RESTful Controllers and Resource Controllers ?
If I use RESTful Controllers how could I define route for our controller ?
For building API which Controller Method is the best ?
Laravel Resource Controllers are defined as Route::controller('users', 'UserController'); while Restful Controllers are defined as Route::resource('photo', 'PhotoController');.
A restful controller follows the standard blueprint for a restful resource which mainly consists of:
GET /resource index resource.index
GET /resource/create create resource.create
POST /resource store resource.store
GET /resource/{resource} show resource.show
GET /resource/{resource}/edit edit resource.edit
PUT/PATCH /resource/{resource} update resource.update
DELETE /resource/{resource} destroy resource.destroy
While the resource controller isn't opinionated like the restful controller. It allows you to create methods directly from you controller and it all gets automatically mapped to your routes:
public function getIndex()
{
// Route::get('/', 'Controller#getIndex');
}
public function postProfile()
{
// Route::post('/profile', 'Controller#postProfile');
}
Will automatically have the routes like Route::post('/profile', 'Controller#postProfile'); without explicitly defining it on the routes, much more of a helper if you will to avoid very long route files.
Doing php artisan routes will show you all your routes. You can test stuff out and use that command to see what routes gets automatically generated.
They are different concepts. In laravel, a resource controller defines all the default routes for a given named resource to follow REST principles.
So when you define a resource in your routes.php like:
Route::resource('users', 'UsersController');
The only thing Laravel does is define for you this routes:
Verb Path Action Route Name
GET /resource index resource.index
GET /resource/create create resource.create
POST /resource store resource.store
GET /resource/{resource} show resource.show
GET /resource/{resource}/edit edit resource.edit
PUT/PATCH /resource/{resource} update resource.update
DELETE /resource/{resource} destroy resource.destroy
And expects that you define those methods on your controller. You can also use only/except clauses to remove unneeded routes:
Route::resource('user', 'UserController', ['except' => ['destroy']]);
More on this on Laravel's documentation.
It's just a distinction about the routing declaration. Instead of using one of those, manually define all of your routes.
Route::get(...);
Route::post(...);
Route::put(...);
Route::delete(...);
Route::patch(...);
It makes your routes file authoritative, easy to understand, and less buggy.
The documentation currently shows RESTful and Resource controllers to refer to the same thing.
Route::resource('resource', 'ResourceController');
It defines the routes for the following http request verbs mapped to the URI, controller action, and route. This allows you to use the predefined route names to connect to predefined controller actions and will map resource_id to {resource} as shown.
Verb URI Action Route Name
GET /resource/index.blade.php index resource
GET /resource/create.blade.php create resource.create
POST /resource store resource.store
GET /resource/{resource}/show.blade.php show resource.show
GET /resource/{resource}/edit.blade.php edit resource.edit
PUT/PATCH update resource.update
DELETE destroy resource.destroy
The term Implicit Controller seems to be the term to specify the use of
Route::controller('resource', 'ResourceController');
which will magically connect all routes to to ResourceController so that the http request verb (get/post) is prefixed in the function name used in the controller. This maps any URI to the controller action (function) with (get/put) in front but does not map resource_id to {resource} or route names.
class UserController extends BaseController {
public function getIndex()
{
//
}
public function postProfile()
{
//
}
public function anyLogin()
{
//
}
}
maps to
Verb URI Action Route Name
GET /index getIndex
POST /profile postProfile
GET /login anyLogin
POST /login anyLogin
DELETE /login anyLogin
It's up to you to decide which method to use if any for routing. There is some debate as to what is useful and if routing is even worth the confusion it can cause.
RESTful Resource Controllers
Resource controllers make it easier to build RESTful controllers around resources. For example, you may wish to create a controller that manages "photos" stored by your application. Using the controller:make command via the Artisan CLI and the Route::resource method, we can quickly create such a controller.
To create the controller via the command line, execute the following command:
php artisan controller:make PhotoController
Now we can register a resourceful route to the controller:
Route::resource('photo', 'PhotoController');
This single route declaration creates multiple routes to handle a variety of RESTful actions on the photo resource. Likewise, the generated controller will already have stubbed methods for each of these actions with notes informing you which URIs and verbs they handle.
Actions Handled By Resource Controller
http://laravel.com/docs/5.0/controllers#restful-resource-controllers
Related
According to the Laravel documentation:
This single route declaration creates multiple routes to handle a
variety of actions on the resource. The generated controller will
already have methods stubbed for each of these actions, including
notes informing you of the HTTP verbs and URIs they handle.
In my route I have this:
Route::resource('admin/companies', 'CompaniesController');
In my controller I have index, create, store, show etc.
Specifically in show I have this:
public function show(Company $company)
{
//
dd('hi');
}
I would expect when I hit this route:
http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/companies/onecompany
for it to dd my response. Instead I get a 404 error. What am I doing wrong?
This route http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/companies/onecompany is not a valid route that triggers resource functions according to Laravel documentaion.
The right URL that will trigger the show(Company $company) function is:
//This route will extract the `id` column from the model and show the required record.
http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/companies/{company}
or
http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/companies/{id}
Try an existing record in your database;
//Assuming there is a record with an id of 1
http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/companies/1
cause of your problem seems related to Route model binding
,try it with id in uri.
to see list of your application's routes: php artisan route:list
I would like to know how to add additional parameters to Laravel's Route Resource without using Query Strings.
I created a controller (CustomerController) with all the built-in resources and then, added the following route:
Route::resource('customers', 'CustomerController');
What i would like to do is add additional parameters to some of the default resources without creating custom routes or using query strings. For example:
Default resource with optional parameter (index):
public function index($page = 0)
{
//...
}
Desired URL:
http://www.example.com/customers
http://www.example.com/customers/{page}
I tried the following, but i get a not found exception (NotFoundHttpException):
Route::resource('customers', 'CustomerController')->parameters([
'index' => 'page'
]);
Is this possible? If so, how can i accomplish it?
Resource Controllers must implement a defined set of methods which are then mapped to the appropriate HTTP verb and path by the router. These methods, paths and verbs form part of a contract that cannot be adjusted, otherwise working with a Laravel application that implements Resource Controllers would be a headache.
Resource Controllers excel in providing the same experience across all Laravel applications, if your application requires behaviour that isn't supported out of the box by Resource Controllers then it is a sign that you should not be using them and should instead register your routes manually.
If you have just one route that needs to implement custom behaviour then you can register some methods instead of all and then choose to register a custom route to your Resource Controllers method, something like:
Route::resource('customers', 'CustomerController')->except([
'index'
]);
Route::get('/customers/{page?}', 'CustomerController#index');
The documentation on Resource Controllers covers except and only.
Try this :
Route::resource('customers', 'CustomerController')->parameters([
'customers' => 'page'
]);
The example above generates the following URIs for the resource's show route:
/customers/{page}
you set the name route: 'index' replace it by the variable : 'customers' name of your ressource
I am new to laravel,I had wrote api route code to register controller:
Route::post('test','Api\Auth\RegisterController#index');
In Register controller i had written simple code
public function index(Request $request)
{
return 'hello';
}
I am getting the output in postman like:
Sorry, the page you are looking for could not be found.
not hello.
Here the images:
1 3
Routes defined in the routes/api.php file are nested within a route
group by the RouteServiceProvider. Within this group, the /api URI
prefix is automatically applied so you do not need to manually apply
it to every route in the file.
You are trying to make a request to a route which does not exist.
In Postman
Change:
http://localhost:8080/App/api/test
To:
http://localhost:8080/api/test
You're telling laravel to route assoaciate '/api/test', not '/App/api/test', which is the adress you're trying to reach.
Also, if you plan to reach that address straight from the location bar of your browser, you should register the 'GET' method as well.
As you are returning something in function you need to use route as get() instead of post().
Route::get('test','Api\Auth\RegisterController#index');
I have some routes in routes.php in laravel
// Code for rounting admin panel
Route::resource('/admin','Admin\LoginController#index');
Route::resource('/admin/dashboard','Admin\AdminController#index');
Route::resource('/admin/movies','Admin\MovieController#index');
Now when I access url http://localhost/askspidy/admin I want to show login page and it works, but when i access url http://localhost/askspidy/admin/dashboard it should go to dashboard but it's showing me login page only.
I know this is because when it found /admin in any url it's bydefault goes to the route
Route::resource('/admin','Admin\LoginController#index');
I know it's assuming that (/admin) is route to controller and (/dashboard) is the function declared in the controller but I want routing like this only so is there any other solution for this problem.
A RESTful Resource Controller takes over the responsibility of each action. You only need to list the name and the controller:
Route::resource('photo', 'PhotoController');
If you wanted to only use the index method, you’d list it like this:
Route::resource('photo', 'PhotoController', ['only' => [
'index'
]]);
However, it looks like two of your routes are not suitable for resources (login and dashboard), as they should relate to editing a model.
You should instead just use a get() resource instead.
From the docs:
Route::get('user/{id}', 'UserController#showProfile');
So in your case, it would be:
Route::get('/admin','Admin\LoginController#index');
Route::get('/admin/dashboard','Admin\AdminController#index');
Route::resource('/admin/movie','Admin\MovieController');
I have a controller that maps the route /print/{car} let's call him IndexController
I want that according to the type of object to redirect the proper Controller. For each type of car I have a different controller: SportCarController, TruckController, FamilyCarController each controller, leading to separate 'wizard steps'. How can I have an elegant way of doing (pseudo-code)
function index(($carInstance){
$goodController = GetMeGoodController:factory($carInsantce);
redirectTo($goodController,'index');//where index is the method
}
PS1: Having different routes is not feasible as adding new types for this object should not change the route. Also changing the type of an object should not interfere with the route. When i refer to redirecTo i am talking about redirect to another controller action, and not HTTP redirect.