Michael, I don't believe so. If you look at the rails 3 fork here:
http://github.com/vhochstein/active_scaffold/tree/master/lib/generators/ you'll see the generators, but the same location in the main fork doesn't exist. j On Sep 8, 12:42 pm, Michael Bahnmiller <[email protected]> wrote: > Is this generator available for 2.3.8? Boy, if it's helped you, I'd > like to look into it :) > > On 09/08/2010 10:40 AM, jack dempsey wrote: > > > > > Hey Jon, > > > Wow, that one tip completely changed the game for me. I didn't realize > > there was a generator; is that mentioned anywhere? Knowing about them > > and this as_routes bit has let me get up and going in a few minutes, > > which is excellent! Thanks much! > > > jack > > > On Sep 8, 11:38 am, Jon Frisby<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Rails3 requires considerably more effort, but could be made easier by just > >> including ALL the steps in the readme rather than relying on people to > >> actually use the generator to discover things. > > >> The routing issue is a great example of that. > > >> In this case, he needs to update his routing for that resource like so: > > >> resources :whatever do as_routes end > > >> Instead of just: > > >> resources :leads > > >> I hit the exact same show_search thing too last night. And in this case, > >> the configurable defaults of AS don't even come into play -- this must be > >> done for every scaffold if you want things to behave properly. > > >> -JF > > >> On Sep 8, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Michael Bahnmiller wrote: > > >>> Hey Jack, > > >>> AS has been incredibly helpful to me. I'm sort of the other mindset, in > >>> that they have developed this thing with a very good set of defaults. > > >>> It's been my experience (though I'm using Rails 2.3.8) that /most/ stuff > >>> works right out of the box. That said, even the stuff that doesn't work > >>> immediately, I write to the list about and it either gets worked on and > >>> fixed within a day or two or someone from the list writes back explaining > >>> how things should be done. > > >>> At first the documentation is hard to navigate and figure out, I agree. > >>> But once you get an idea of what's going on, it's not quite so bad. > > >>> If you need any help, just write! Sometimes it's just a matter of > >>> getting relationships set up correctly, etc. > > >>> Also, a note on defaults - you can, in fact, set your own set of defaults > >>> in the application controller so that you don't have to worry about > >>> setting them every time. > > >>> Anyway, feel free to write. > > >>> Thanks, and welcome to the group :) > >>> Mikelb > > >>> On 09/08/2010 12:31 AM, jack dempsey wrote: > > >>>> I recently tried using ActiveScaffold in a simple application of mine. > >>>> I've found the process extremely frustrating and had basically given > >>>> up. After looking through some of the other common choices for admin > >>>> type interfaces, I'm looking at ActiveScaffold again, as the other > >>>> choices are even more frustrating. > > >>>> This is of course my opinion, but as a user new to this lib, I would > >>>> expect some semblance of an ability to get things running without too > >>>> much hassle. > > >>>> So, I setup the basics, added active_scaffold :model to a controller, > >>>> and then set about to try things out. > > >>>> Things blow up immediately with an error about a route not matching > >>>> show_search. Search? I'm not even thinking about search yet. Why is > >>>> this a default that can't work on its own? > > >>>> I eventually find the API docs and figure out some way of avoiding the > >>>> search action. I try loading things up again. > > >>>> This time it bombs with an error about edit_associated something or > >>>> other. Ok...I comment out the has_and_belongs_to_many call in my model > >>>> and refresh. Voila, the page loads! So after that first success I go > >>>> back and try to figure out what to do next. After trying a variety of > >>>> things I somehow get it to work, sort of. > > >>>> So, in short, I think you've done an incredible job of trying to > >>>> handle a huge variety of situations and use cases. I know this stuff > >>>> is complex and I can only imagine the time put into the project. I > >>>> don't send this with any sort of entitlement or feeling that anyone > >>>> owes me something. Quite the contrary. > > >>>> However, I do think there are some basic improvements that could be > >>>> made that would hugely help people get up and get going with > >>>> ActiveScaffold. > > >>>> 1. if configuration is needed for an option, don't include it in the > >>>> defaults. Don't make me think about search when I may not even want > >>>> it. Don't make me add in other methods, routes, links, or whatever if > >>>> I just want to get a simple scaffolding view of some models going. > >>>> It's so much better to opt-in to the more advanced capabilities once > >>>> ready than force them on a user to start with. > > >>>> 2. A certain amount of configuration is acceptable of course. For > >>>> instance, adding in include helpers, changing things like what js > >>>> framework to use, etc. makes a lot of sense to me. I still don't like > >>>> having to do that sort of thing each time I want to generate a new > >>>> idea, so I've wrapped it up in a rails 3 compatible recipe in a > >>>> project of mine, which you can see here: > >>>>http://github.com/jackdempsey/beet/blob/master/lib/beet/recipes/rails... > > >>>> The line I would draw though is using beet to setup config options in > >>>> a controller to exclude search and so on as a default. I really think > >>>> that should be the default choice from the lib itself. > > >>>> 3. If certain choices remain standard, then it'd be great to have a > >>>> small section of "this is what you need to do to get going", showing > >>>> configs for search, how to setup edit_associated urls, and other > >>>> things like that. There may very well be this sort of page out there, > >>>> but I couldn't find it, and gave up after a good amount of searching. > > >>>> The reason I'm so frustrated is that this project is so close to being > >>>> something amazingly useful for me and I imagine many others, but these > >>>> first stumbling steps were almost enough to make me want to quit > >>>> trying and not look back, and that would be a shame. > > >>>> I'm not one to complain and expect others to code for me. I'd be happy > >>>> to help document things (once I understand them better) and engage in > >>>> a discussion about defaults, how easy it should or shouldn't be to get > >>>> up and running, etc. At this point though I don't want to jump back in > >>>> without a better sense of hope that each new thing I try to do won't > >>>> be broken to start, and force me to scour pages looking for a fix. Is > > >>>> Thank you for the time, effort, and consideration put into AS. I truly > >>>> appreciate it and hope I can help with improving it even more. > > >>>> best, > >>>> Jack > > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> athttp://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.
