I realize that but currently the memory footprint of each route resource you define is huge. I use about 150 active scaffolds in my application and defining a resource for each just makes the memory utilization of my application far too large (basically double per webserver process).
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Kenneth Ortmann <[email protected]>wrote: > If you are using embeded and nested scaffolds without defining a route for > the controllers I would stop doing this. This is a bad practice. > Nick did you remove the default routes from your routes.rb file? Defining > the resources in your routes file to be part of active_scaffold isn't > something that was just thrown in as a nice to have. Every action for every > controller should be specified in your routes file and the default routes > should be removed. You can leave your website open to huge vulnerabilities > if you don't remove the default routes... > > ~Kenny > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Nick Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Will embedded and nested scaffolds still work without defining a route >> resource for each scaffold? >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Sergio Cambra .:: entreCables S.L. ::. >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Martes, 9 de Febrero de 2010 19:22:18 kintner escribió: >>> > On Feb 4, 11:09 am, "Sergio Cambra .:: entreCables S.L. ::." >>> > >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > On Jueves, 4 de Febrero de 2010 15:33:59 Kenneth Ortmann escribió: >>> > > > I'm sure a branch will be created shortly. Sergio may have more >>> > > > information >>> > > >>> > > My personal roadmap is: >>> > > - fix some bugs and easy issues from google code >>> > > - look at edwin moss changes and merge some of them. >>> > > - create a new branch to merge incompatible changes (branches >>> security >>> > > and experimental) to get rid of render_component (only will be used >>> to >>> > > activescaffold embedded) >>> > >>> > So will you be dropping support for embedded activescaffold? Or will >>> > there be another way to do it without using components? >>> >>> No, embedded scaffolds will continue working with render_component, but >>> render_component won't be needed for nested scaffolds. Also session won't >>> be >>> used for constraints, so some strange errors with session cookie >>> overflowing >>> will be fixed. Nested routes will be used for nested scaffolds if you >>> setup >>> them, in other way parameters will be sent in query string >>> (?parent_id=3). >>> It's on experimental branch, although it needs more testing. >>> >>> > >>> > > - cleanup some code using new features of rails (such as >>> > > accepts_nested_attributes_for, using mass assignment) >>> > > - support for rails 3 >>> > > >>> > > Support for rails 3 could get more priority if I start to use rails 3 >>> > > before I finish the other changes, but I'm not using it ATM neither >>> > > planning to use it in a near future. I'm not against other work in >>> rails >>> > > 3 support. >>> > > >>> > > > ~Kenny >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Tom Cocca <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > Hi Guys, I couldn't find any information on this and I am just >>> > > > > curious about it, no immediate requests because rails 3.0.0beta >>> just >>> > > > > came out last night. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I was wondering what that plan/roadmap was for AS and Rails 3? >>> Is >>> > > > > there a branch going somewhere or has dev not started on this >>> yet? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Just curious. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Great work as always, >>> > > > > ~ Tom >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -- >>> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> Google >>> > > > > Groups "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. >>> > > > > To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> > > > > [email protected]<activescaffold%[email protected]> >>> <activescaffold%2Bunsubscr >>> > > > >ibe@ googlegroups.com> . >>> > > > > For more options, visit this group at >>> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en. >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Sergio Cambra .:: entreCables S.L. ::. >>> > > Mariana Pineda 23, 50.018 Zaragoza >>> > > T) 902 021 404 F) 976 52 98 07 E) [email protected] >>> >>> -- >>> Sergio Cambra .:: entreCables S.L. ::. >>> Mariana Pineda 23, 50.018 Zaragoza >>> T) 902 021 404 F) 976 52 98 07 E) [email protected] >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<activescaffold%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en. >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<activescaffold%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<activescaffold%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ActiveScaffold : Ruby on Rails plugin" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/activescaffold?hl=en.
