On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM, rosslaird <r...@rosslaird.com> wrote:
> Though, upon reflection, it sounds like what you're really saying is
> that even if I can run them alongside one another, it's not a good
> idea to do so.

What problem are you trying to solve that would require 2 extensions
that provide basically the same features?

>
> On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, rosslaird <r...@rosslaird.com> wrote:
>> It seems that tags uses a 'tags' table. I am using the tags extension
>> (version 1.5), created by Benny Degezelle and Jim Gay. The version of
>> taggable that I am trying to run alongside tags is version 1.2.1,
>> created by you (Will). Both of these versions are the most recent
>> available from github.
>>
>> Maybe the tags extension that I am running is the incorrect one? It's
>> this one:
>>
>> https://github.com/jomz/radiant-tags-extension
>>
>> There are various other tags extensions listed on github (though all
>> the others seem to be qualified for a special application, such as
>> navigation).
>>
>> Before I go messing around with the tags extension (which I will
>> surely mess up even more), maybe this is simply a matter of getting
>> the correct tags extension. (Maybe?)
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On Mar 13, 6:51 am, William Ross <w...@spanner.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 12 Mar 2011, at 22:18, rosslaird wrote:
>>
>> > > I have the tags extension installed, and I want to try out taggable.
>> > > But it seems that both use a table called "tags," and this causes the
>> > > migration of taggable to halt. I suppose I will have to remove the
>> > > tags extension to install taggable, but if there is another way to do
>> > > this (so that I preserve both extensions) that would be preferable.
>> > > Ideas and suggestions most welcome.
>>
>> > I thought the tags extension used a 'meta_tags' table and MetaTag object? 
>> > They ought to be compatible in the sense that you can install one and then 
>> > the other without destructive side effects.
>>
>> > You might even be able to run them side by side: taggable takes over the 
>> > keywords field where tags adds its own text-to-tags process. I wouldn't 
>> > recommend it, though: there are likely to be odd method-name clashes and 
>> > some admin UI collisions are likely. It will be hard to evaluate them, 
>> > even if they work.
>>
>> > best,
>>
>> > will
>



-- 
Jim Gay
Saturn Flyer LLC
http://www.saturnflyer.com
571-403-0338

Reply via email to