<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ASP.NET MVC 2 and the Ambiguous Match Exception for Action methods with different signatures</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/asp-net-mvc-ambiguous-match/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/asp-net-mvc-ambiguous-match/</link>
	<description>Living in the World&#039;s Smartest House</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:30:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/asp-net-mvc-ambiguous-match/#comment-275</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:41:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.abodit.com/?p=439#comment-275</guid>
		<description>I think 99.999% of the time, different forms should invoke totally different actions.  If you have a need for producing three separate forms, you have a need for more clarity in the actions that service them, and MVC provides this.  I used to think along these lines as well (same action for different tasks), but after &quot;thinking MVC&quot; for awhile now, I realize that&#039;s just a really bad practice developed from my webform days.

Fluent, descriptive actions that do exactly what they are supposed to do and don&#039;t serve double or triple duty is the elegant practice that MVC makes it easy to fall into.  I still hate the way MS encourages the GET and POST versions of &quot;Create&quot;.  I&#039;m an MVC purist and go with the &quot;Golden 7&quot; RESTful actions in my controllers.  &quot;New&quot; for displaying the form, and &quot;Create&quot; for the post that actually creates it.  Or &quot;Edit&quot; for displaying the form, and &quot;Update&quot; for the post that actually saves it.  Why call it the same thing when the functionality is completely different?  We need to learn from the frameworks that have been doing MVC a lot longer than ASP.NET instead of copying WebForm ideas to a much better pattern.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think 99.999% of the time, different forms should invoke totally different actions.  If you have a need for producing three separate forms, you have a need for more clarity in the actions that service them, and MVC provides this.  I used to think along these lines as well (same action for different tasks), but after &#8220;thinking MVC&#8221; for awhile now, I realize that&#8217;s just a really bad practice developed from my webform days.</p>
<p>Fluent, descriptive actions that do exactly what they are supposed to do and don&#8217;t serve double or triple duty is the elegant practice that MVC makes it easy to fall into.  I still hate the way MS encourages the GET and POST versions of &#8220;Create&#8221;.  I&#8217;m an MVC purist and go with the &#8220;Golden 7&#8243; RESTful actions in my controllers.  &#8220;New&#8221; for displaying the form, and &#8220;Create&#8221; for the post that actually creates it.  Or &#8220;Edit&#8221; for displaying the form, and &#8220;Update&#8221; for the post that actually saves it.  Why call it the same thing when the functionality is completely different?  We need to learn from the frameworks that have been doing MVC a lot longer than ASP.NET instead of copying WebForm ideas to a much better pattern.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/asp-net-mvc-ambiguous-match/#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.abodit.com/?p=439#comment-122</guid>
		<description>Thanks for posting this, I was looking for a fix to this issue for a while. I really like the way the architecture of ASP.NET MVC enables such elegant workarounds to problems such as this, after years of hacking and kludging my way through asp.net forms it&#039;s a refreshing change!

One thing though - there&#039;s an issue using this with the RenderAction Html helper method, as ControllerContext.RouteData hands you the route data values from the original Http Request rather than those passed to the RenderAction call.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for posting this, I was looking for a fix to this issue for a while. I really like the way the architecture of ASP.NET MVC enables such elegant workarounds to problems such as this, after years of hacking and kludging my way through asp.net forms it&#8217;s a refreshing change!</p>
<p>One thing though &#8211; there&#8217;s an issue using this with the RenderAction Html helper method, as ControllerContext.RouteData hands you the route data values from the original Http Request rather than those passed to the RenderAction call.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ASP.NET MVC Archived Blog Posts, Page 1</title>
		<link>http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/asp-net-mvc-ambiguous-match/#comment-93</link>
		<dc:creator>ASP.NET MVC Archived Blog Posts, Page 1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:23:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.abodit.com/?p=439#comment-93</guid>
		<description>[...] to VoteASP.NET MVC 2 and the Ambiguous Match Exception for Action methods with different signatures (2/16/2...Tuesday, February 16, 2010 from IanOne frustration I have with ASP.NET MVC is that you can’t [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to VoteASP.NET MVC 2 and the Ambiguous Match Exception for Action methods with different signatures (2/16/2&#8230;Tuesday, February 16, 2010 from IanOne frustration I have with ASP.NET MVC is that you can’t [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

