Rails - Aug 2005 - Generators: understanding complex_template in scaffold_generator

I''m trying to understand why things are done the way they are in the 
scaffold generator. Right now, what I don''t get is why the _form.rhtml 
partial is generated from two parts. I see that the inner part is 
processed in a context where the tag helper methods are exchanged with 
implementations that write Rails-ERb code instead of HTML. But to me it 
is not obvious why it needs to be done this way, i.e., why isn''t this 
done with just a single part evaluated with the appropriate binding?

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig                      They tell you that the darkness
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org                  Is a
blessing in disguise
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/           --Janis Ian, From Me To You

On Aug 19, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> I''m trying to understand why things are done the way they are in
the
> scaffold generator. Right now, what I don''t get is why the
_form.rhtml
> partial is generated from two parts. I see that the inner part is
> processed in a context where the tag helper methods are exchanged with
> implementations that write Rails-ERb code instead of HTML. But to  
> me it
> is not obvious why it needs to be done this way, i.e., why isn''t
this
> done with just a single part evaluated with the appropriate binding?
Hi Michael,

It''s done in this way so you can regenerate the form after
you''ve
created
the database table: see the little-known script/update.  This allows you
to generate scaffolding, create the table, then update the scaffolded  
views
with the forms appropriate for the new table.  Perhaps this extra  
complexity
isn''t worth it considering so few use it, much less are aware of it.

Best,
jeremy

On Friday 19 August 2005 22:55, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2005, at 11:10 AM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> > I''m trying to understand why things are done the way they are
in
> > the scaffold generator. Right now, what I don''t get is why
the
> > _form.rhtml partial is generated from two parts. I see that the
> > inner part is processed in a context where the tag helper methods
> > are exchanged with implementations that write Rails-ERb code
> > instead of HTML. But to me it
> > is not obvious why it needs to be done this way, i.e., why
isn''t
> > this done with just a single part evaluated with the appropriate
> > binding?
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> It''s done in this way so you can regenerate the form after
you''ve
> created
> the database table: see the little-known script/update.  This allows
> you to generate scaffolding, create the table, then update the
> scaffolded views
> with the forms appropriate for the new table.  Perhaps this extra
> complexity
> isn''t worth it considering so few use it, much less are aware of
it.
Hi Jeremy,

thanks for pointing this out, now I see it in the Update command. Neat!

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig                              Life is just as deadly
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org                          
As it looks
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/          --Richard Thompson, Sibella

> > It''s done in this way so you can regenerate the form after
you''ve
> > created
> > the database table: see the little-known script/update.  This allows
> > you to generate scaffolding, create the table, then update the
> > scaffolded views
> > with the forms appropriate for the new table.  Perhaps this extra
> > complexity
> > isn''t worth it considering so few use it, much less are aware
of it.
I saw that script today and had no clue what it was for.  I think that
is a very good use of it, in fact.  Of course, this should just be
easier for people to find.

I should really look into doing my own scaffolding, since my form
fields take a slightly different form (I use divs and label tags). 
Hmm, someday....

-- 
rick
http://techno-weenie.net

> Perhaps this extra  complexity
> isn''t worth it considering so few use it, much less are aware of
it.
>


There seem to be many things (some very cool) in Rails that aren''t 
documented anywhere or not in a place a mortal could find.

How about a "Documentation Needed" section on the Wiki where an un-
(or
poorly) documented feature could be written up by someone in the know.

As far as I''m concerned, an "undocumented feature" is a
documentation
bug and should be treated as such. That said, a rapidly evolving 
environment such as RoR is going to have lots of them. The Ruby and 
Rails communities seem to be doing a great job of balancing programming, 
documentation and testing. I just hope the environment doesn''t change
so
fast that it gets created faster than I can learn it. :)

Steve Downey wrote:
> There seem to be many things (some very cool) in Rails that aren''t
> documented anywhere or not in a place a mortal could find.
>
> How about a "Documentation Needed" section on the Wiki where an
un-
> (or poorly) documented feature could be written up by someone in the 
> know.
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>