That's a fine way to learn something. Doing is a better teacher than
anything else.
But i'd just make 2 projects to test out the different extensions. If
they do the same thing and use the same or similar tables then you're
asking for trouble.
It would be like using page_attachments and paperclipped together,
which both use the page_attachments table: you're bound to find
problems with both of them turned on.
And you would never do this in a real site, so it would be better to
compare 2 different projects locally and decide.

If you want to use 1 project, you can turn them on or off by setting
"config.extensions -= [:tags]" (or taggable) to turn one off at a time
(in config/environment.rb)
Or just move one out of the vendor/extensions directory and restart,
then move it back and move the other out.

Radiant (or any rails project) will run fine if there are extra and
unused tables in the database. So if one uses tags and the other uses
meta_tags, the presence of one table should not affect the other when
you disable either extension.

I hope that helps.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:47 PM, rosslaird <> wrote:
> Oops, hang on a sec: meta_tags and taggings are both from tags (as
> indicated above).
> I'm getting mixed up with all the name similarity here.
> So, it's just a matter of that one tags table and what to do with it.
> Ross
> On Mar 13, 5:39 pm, rosslaird <> wrote:
>> Jim, it's not so much that I have a problem I'm trying to solve but
>> rather that I'm just trying to learn Radiant. I like to try out
>> various things, see how they work, and figure out what's best for my
>> setup. I am not a programmer, so I find it very helpful to do things
>> like install an extension, set it up, and see what's possible. I find
>> this much easier than trying to figure out the code from behind the
>> scenes. Over the past few months I've learned most of what I need to
>> know to use and administer Radiant by installing, using, and sometimes
>> breaking various extensions. I find that this learning method -- while
>> far from efficient -- works quite well for me.
>> Will, with this current situation, it sounds like the "tags" table may
>> not be from the tags extension at all but rather from another
>> extension that I have previously installed (like twitter tags, for
>> example). Thanks to your snippet above, I now know how to find the
>> names of the tables used by extensions. And this brings up the
>> question of whether I should just remove the tags table. I have
>> probably removed the extension that uses the tags table (I have
>> installed and removed various extensions), but it seems that the table
>> is still there (and taggable won't migrate for this reason).
>> I am no mysql expert, but I can see that I have three tables:
>> meta_tags
>> taggings
>> tags
>> When I browse the meta_tags table, I see all the tags that show up on
>> my site with the tags extension. So, that seems to confirm what has
>> previously been said (the tags extension uses the meta_tags table).
>> When I browse the taggings table I see the structure but seemingly no
>> data added by me. Same with the tags table. So, the question is what
>> to do next.
>> Taggable seems to have been partially installed. The migration seems
>> to have created one table (taggings) but has halted at the tags table
>> (which already exists). Should I remove the taggable extension (I
>> usually use the VERSION=0 method), or should I try to remove the tags
>> table, re-run the migration for taggable, then uninstall it (since I
>> should not be using both extensions at once)? Or does the order of
>> things matter here?
>> Ross
>> On Mar 13, 3:15 pm, William Ross <> wrote:
>> > 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:
>> > >
>> > Hm. I don't really know, since I use taggable for this kind of thing, but 
>> > all I'm seeing here:
>> >        
>> >
>> > 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 <> 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

Reply via email to