On 13 Mar 2011, at 20:40, rosslaird 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
Hm. I don't really know, since I use taggable for this kind of thing, but all
I'm seeing here:
https://github.com/jomz/radiant-tags-extension/blob/master/db/migrate/001_add_tag_support.rb
is the meta_tags and taggings tables.
> 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?)
I guess that depends what you're aiming to do. Both will do the job of tagging
pages and then getting at them through tag clouds and other lists. Taggable is
more general purpose but not so well-prepared out of the box.
best,
will
>
> Ross
>
> On Mar 13, 6:51 am, William Ross <[email protected]> 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
