I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should be deprecated or not? I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding would serve better as a plugin. Anyone agree? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 02/03/2007, at 3:46 PM, Josh Peek wrote:> > I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > be deprecated or not? > > I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of > improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I > don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding > would serve better as a plugin.How about getting rid of scaffolding altogether? Narr... they''re good as an example of how to use the framework, that is, assuming they''re updated as the framework gets updated and best practices evolve. If scaffolding''s purpose is for learning purposes only, maybe is should be stated as such: ./script/generate example_controller ? -- tim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 1, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Tim Lucas wrote:>> I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of >> improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I >> don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding >> would serve better as a plugin.It can be useful for the maintenance of things like lookup tables, particularly during development. Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I agree. Scaffolding is about having something to learn from. If you''re learning from it, you need the code. If you''re building from it, you should have the code. Dynamic scaffolding is just for flash. +1 for deprecation On 3/1/07, Josh Peek <josh@joshpeek.com> wrote:> > I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > be deprecated or not? > > I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of > improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I > don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding > would serve better as a plugin. > > Anyone agree? > > > > >-- Kevin Clark http://glu.ttono.us --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
agreed, however, when the goal is to expose a resource, then dynamic scaffolding may be good enough. On 3/1/07, Kevin Clark <kevin.clark@gmail.com> wrote:> > I agree. Scaffolding is about having something to learn from. If > you''re learning from it, you need the code. If you''re building from > it, you should have the code. Dynamic scaffolding is just for flash. > > +1 for deprecation > > On 3/1/07, Josh Peek <josh@joshpeek.com> wrote: > > > > I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > > be deprecated or not? > > > > I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of > > improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I > > don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding > > would serve better as a plugin. > > > > Anyone agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Kevin Clark > http://glu.ttono.us > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
+1 This should be in a plugin, it only adds extra code to rails. ~Wayne On Mar 01, 2007, at 23:46 , Josh Peek wrote:> > I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > be deprecated or not? > > I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of > improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I > don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding > would serve better as a plugin. > > Anyone agree? > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 02, 2007, at 00:33 , Dave Thomas wrote:> It can be useful for the maintenance of things like lookup tables, > particularly during development. > > DaveTrue, but this can just as easily be facilitated as a plugin. ~Wayne --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 02/03/07, Josh Peek <josh@joshpeek.com> wrote:> > I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > be deprecated or not? > > I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of > improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I > don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding > would serve better as a plugin. > > Anyone agree?Yet another +1. I''d like it deprecated within the framework, it''s much better suited as a plugin. Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Yet another +1. I''d like it deprecated within the framework, it''s > much better suited as a plugin.+1 And if you need something quick and [not quite as] dirty for an admin interface, streamlined [http://www.streamlinedframework.org/pages/about] does a much better job than dynamic scaffolding. Alex --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Tom Ward wrote:> On 02/03/07, Josh Peek <josh@joshpeek.com> wrote: > >> I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should >> be deprecated or not? >> >> I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of >> improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I >> don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding >> would serve better as a plugin. >> >> Anyone agree? >> > > Yet another +1. I''d like it deprecated within the framework, it''s > much better suited as a plugin. >+1 -- Istvan Hoka --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Josh Peek wrote:> I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > be deprecated or not? > > I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of > improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I > don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding > would serve better as a plugin. > > Anyone agree?I see that lots of people are agreeing, but please bear in mind that the second edition of AWDR starts work on the Depot application by using dynamic scaffolding. The first edition did not. Deprecating dynamic scaffolding will give the impression to AWDR2 readers, just when they are starting to work with Rails against a database, that Rails is not stable. regards Justin Forder --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should > be deprecated or not?This is already on the agenda for Rails 2.0. I fully agree that this would make a great plugin, though. Even better, it''d make a great 5 plugins. Each targeted at different uses of it. -- David Heinemeier Hansson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Excellent point. Perhaps this should be kept in the current core and be pulled for 2.0 which the next book (?) will address. ~Wayne On Mar 02, 2007, at 13:47 , Justin Forder wrote:> Josh Peek wrote: >> I want to raise some discussion on whether dynamic scaffolding should >> be deprecated or not? >> >> I don''t think it has any real production value. I''ve seen examples of >> improving dynamic scaffolding to work better with resources, but I >> don''t think they belong in core. If anything, dynamic scaffolding >> would serve better as a plugin. >> >> Anyone agree? > > I see that lots of people are agreeing, but please bear in mind > that the > second edition of AWDR starts work on the Depot application by using > dynamic scaffolding. The first edition did not. > > Deprecating dynamic scaffolding will give the impression to AWDR2 > readers, just when they are starting to work with Rails against a > database, that Rails is not stable. > > regards > > Justin Forder--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 2, 5:45 am, "Wayne E. Seguin" <wayneeseg...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 02, 2007, at 00:33 , Dave Thomas wrote: > > > It can be useful for the maintenance of things like lookup tables, > > particularly during development. > > > Dave > > True, but this can just as easily be facilitated as a plugin. > > ~WayneWhat was meant by ''dynamic'' scaffolding? If we''re talking about removing the scaffold generator, then I''m against it. Many people learn a lot from generating the scaffolding for a controller and then reading the generated code. I''d hate to make them learn how to install plugins first. If you''re instead referring to the ''scaffold'' class method that can be used in a controller, then I''m all for removing it :-) Jeff softiesonrails.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Deprecating dynamic scaffolding will give the impression to AWDR2 > readers, just when they are starting to work with Rails against a > database, that Rails is not stable.Any major changes will be held back till 2.0. There''s definitely no intention of breaking people''s scaffolds in 1.2.3. While I''m probably the most paranoid core-team member when it comes to backwards compatibility, I''d still rather see the framework continue to evolve, rather than stagnate indefinitely to satisfy some people''s fear of change :). Eventually that feature will be pulled out to a plugin, but for this release stream, it''s fine where it is. -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 2, 12:50 pm, "DHH" <david.heineme...@gmail.com> wrote:> This is already on the agenda for Rails 2.0. I fully agree that this > would make a great plugin, though. Even better, it''d make a great 5 > plugins. Each targeted at different uses of it.Shall I put in a patch/ticket to add a deprecation warning to "scaffold"? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 3/2/07, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Mar 2, 5:45 am, "Wayne E. Seguin" <wayneeseg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 02, 2007, at 00:33 , Dave Thomas wrote: > > > > > It can be useful for the maintenance of things like lookup tables, > > > particularly during development. > > > > > Dave > > > > True, but this can just as easily be facilitated as a plugin. > > > > ~Wayne > > > What was meant by ''dynamic'' scaffolding? If we''re talking about > removing the scaffold generator, then I''m against it. Many people > learn a lot from generating the scaffolding for a controller and then > reading the generated code. I''d hate to make them learn how to > install plugins first. > > If you''re instead referring to the ''scaffold'' class method that can be > used in a controller, then I''m all for removing it :-) > > Jeff > softiesonrails.comBig plus +1 here. Dynamic scaffold == bad. Static == very good for newbies and learning. - rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Rob Sanheim wrote:> Big plus +1 here. Dynamic scaffold == bad. Static == very good for > newbies and learning.+1, with the recent ReSTfullization I''ve also found that many controllers look the same and the static scaffolding has found it''s place again. Manfred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
See ticket #7700 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/7700). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Shall I put in a patch/ticket to add a deprecation warning to > "scaffold"?When something''s deprecated, there''s generally got to be something quick and easy the user can do about it. Change @flash to flash, etc. No point shouting at the user if the action they have to take is long and laborious. We should mark it is deprecated in the documentation, then make sure that come 2.0 there''s a plugin they can install for the same functionality. -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 2, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:> We should mark it is deprecated in the documentation, then make sure > that come 2.0 there''s a plugin they can install for the same > functionality.I''ll jump on the plugin. Should I commit it to the official plugin repository or just to my own? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Just finished rolling the scaffolding plugin. I would deprecate scaffolding in core and point people to install the plugin instead. The plugin will then override the annoying deprecation notice. The plugin is a direct port, no new enhancements, even though it could use some. O, and for the first time, scaffolding tests! http://dev.rubyonrails.org/attachment/ticket/7700/scaffolding_plugin.diff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On Mar 3, 7:40 pm, "Josh Peek" <j...@joshpeek.com> wrote:> The plugin is a direct port, no new enhancements, even though it could > use some. O, and for the first time, scaffolding tests! >I''m not maintaining it anymore, but I did create a full dynamic resource scaffolding plugin, last year, that you are welcome to borrow from, if there is anything worth it in there: http://code.google.com/p/dynamic-scaffold-resource/ . I followed the existing scaffolding code (that existed at that time, obviously), as closely as I could. After making that plugin I started to come around to the core team''s views on the shortcomings of scaffolding, but I still don''t like the lack of DRYness of how much shared code there is between my controllers. Maybe the generator should create a shared restcontroller to inherit from? Basically an updated version of http://geekonomics.blogspot.com/2006/07/crud-and-shared-controllers.html That allows for DRYness with the flexibility to easily override, customize, and extend. Not sure if there is any interest in doing so in core, so I went ahead and did so for my own use, but it''s MIT licensed, so have at it. ;) I just think the move to REST simplifies things enough that they can be DRYed out even more. http://code.google.com/p/restcontroller/ http://www.timocracy.com/articles/2007/04/03/dynamic-scaffold-resource-is-dead-long-live-restcontroller --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---