Yeah thats what I was hoping, though I have not looked into it yet. Thanks
for the input.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:13 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I could be wrong but I think they addressed the routes overhead issue some
> in rails 3
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Nick Rogers <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:14:16 -0800
> *To: *<[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: ActiveScaffold Rails 3 Roadmap?
>
> 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]<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.

Reply via email to