Actually, I answered most of my questions myself. I'll just try and whip out a plugin for this, at least far enough to have something showable, and then ask for comments.
Tim On 10/16/06, Tim Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was so excited to get going that I started on a plug-in, but if it's > likely it will actually make it in, then I'll just code against trunk > (just barely started). Or should I do it as a plug-in to make it > usable until it makes it in? I'd definitely love to give this a shot, > though. It might be easier to me to make a separate scaffold_resource > call to match the generator, and so I can avoid having to deal with > the suffix for multiple models issue (since a REST controller won't > have that). > > I'm pretty good at figuring stuff out, so it might not be completely > beyond my abilities to implement this, but those two patches were my > first, so my ruby-fu might be lacking some. If I can get pointers > here or there on the trickier parts (for instance I am currently > having to use @scaffold_edit_model_path.call in the view templates, > and really can't quite figure out any way to get the named route to > work dynamically in the controller code, such as in the :verify line) > it'd help. > > Of course, I don't develop with-out version control, so maybe I'll > have to set it up as a plug-in first, anyways, so I can commit as I > go? > > Oh, one of my immediate questions, where are the tests for the > scaffolding code? If I do a plug-in I'll obviously be doing my own, > but it'd be > > Tim > > On 10/16/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > On Oct 16, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Tim Connor wrote: > > > Am I completely off base here? If I want a dynamic scaffold_resource > > > :model should I proceed and submit the patch? Should I just update > > > the > > > current scaffolding to use the new REST style, or make it > > > scaffold_resource? What are the odds of this sort of thing getting > > > applied? More likely given the push to REST, and since this would add > > > another minor nudge? Should I make any other tiny patches needed to > > > core, and then just make the rest a plug-in? > > > > I for one would dearly love to see the default scaffold > > implementation (both dynamic and generated) move towards REST. Of > > course, I think it would be important to still have a way to access > > the old-style scaffold, perhaps with a parameter to script/generate > > and :scaffold. Would that be technically feasible for you to implement? > > > > DHH, what's the policy on changing default behavior in Rails 1.2? > > Absolutely forbidden, or only if there's a really big win? > > > > -- Ernie P. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ..do you know why George Bush is so pissed off at Arabs? > They brought us algebra. --Kurt Vonnegut > -- ..do you know why George Bush is so pissed off at Arabs? They brought us algebra. --Kurt Vonnegut --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
