Running a quick test, I get the same behavior. Is it a viable option to use something other than Properties?
mannish
2009-07-01 19:04:35
+1
A:
I'd prefer not to if at all possible, after all the idea of MVC is that you have complete control and your URL naming scheme is to be as clean as possible!
Kieran Benton
2009-07-01 19:24:45
Well, sort of. That's the idea behind routing, not necessarily just MVC, but regardless, MVC reles on certain conventions and that includes not using reserved words or names of other resources. I would suggest either looking into locking down that route definition further (I'll add an edit with a suggestion) or coming up with a different name for your controller.
mannish
2009-07-01 20:37:04
I tried locking down the route a bit further and get the same result. You might be SOL on this but I'll be curious to see if there's a way around it.
mannish
2009-07-01 20:41:57
Looks like you're right - oh well, will have to get my thesaurus out!
Kieran Benton
2009-07-01 22:03:30
FWIW, we have a controller called PropertyController that works just fine in one of our projects. But we have a convention of using singular names for controllers (as opposed to plural such as 'Properties').
mannish
2009-07-01 22:43:08
A:
I don't know if it's an option for you, but you could try to disable routing to existing files.
routes.RouteExistingFiles = false;
chris166
2009-07-01 19:48:29
+1
A:
Since someone else is having the same problem, I'm guessing that you're running into a reserved keyword here (I imagine ClassControllers are out as well).
It's not the first time it's happened either - digging deeper into the internals of the environment, you can't route to Windows' reserved keywords either.
48klocs
2009-07-01 19:52:35