On 9 Mar 2012, at 15:03, Ankur wrote: > With gems like inherited_resource, I am not sure what the use of scaffolding > is.
I think that what this discussion is missing out on is that many developers extend scaffolding (using the rails APIs, not monkey patching here), just like any other generator. The default out of the box might not be any good, but people who need to produce similar things either in a single project, or within many projects, would loose this basic and expected functionality. Yes we could add a gem which provides them, and then people extend them, but that would make some of the nicer automation rails has always provided a second class citizen. > On Thursday, March 8, 2012 1:30:39 PM UTC-5, Ryan Bigg wrote: > Hello friends, > > It's been fun having the scaffold generator exist as a part of Rails since > The Beginning Of Time, but I think its time is now up. It has been abused > time and time again, and most often leads to confusion amongst people who are > new to Rails. > > This confusion happens when a user first generates a scaffold and sees that > it is good. They can perform CRUD actions on a resource using one command?! > WOW! > > Then they try to modify the scaffold and run into problems. First of all: how > do they add an action to the controller? Do they need to run another command? > How do they then define a route for that action? A template? > > If they were to *not* use the scaffold generator from the beginning, I > believe they would have less confusion. They would know how to add another > action to the controller and a template for that action because this would be > how they're doing it from the start. Learning how to define a route for a new > action in the controller is something easily learnable by reading the routing > guide. > > I think that we can fix this problem in one of two ways, the latter more > extreme than the first one. > > The first way is that we completely change the Getting Started Guide to > simply *mention* the scaffold generator, but then show people the "correct" > way of generating a controller (rails g controller) and adding actions to it > one by one, adding a model as its needed, and using similar practices to how > you would do it in the "real world". > > The second way, and sorry if this sounds a little extreme, is to completely > remove the scaffold generator from the core of Rails itself. This means that > there wouldn't even be the option to run the scaffold generator for newbies. > You could then extract this out into a gem if you *really* wanted people to > have the option for it. However, if this path was taken it should be made > clear that this is not the "sanctioned" way to create controllers. > > Thoughts? > > On Thursday, March 8, 2012 1:30:39 PM UTC-5, Ryan Bigg wrote: > Hello friends, > > It's been fun having the scaffold generator exist as a part of Rails since > The Beginning Of Time, but I think its time is now up. It has been abused > time and time again, and most often leads to confusion amongst people who are > new to Rails. > > This confusion happens when a user first generates a scaffold and sees that > it is good. They can perform CRUD actions on a resource using one command?! > WOW! > > Then they try to modify the scaffold and run into problems. First of all: how > do they add an action to the controller? Do they need to run another command? > How do they then define a route for that action? A template? > > If they were to *not* use the scaffold generator from the beginning, I > believe they would have less confusion. They would know how to add another > action to the controller and a template for that action because this would be > how they're doing it from the start. Learning how to define a route for a new > action in the controller is something easily learnable by reading the routing > guide. > > I think that we can fix this problem in one of two ways, the latter more > extreme than the first one. > > The first way is that we completely change the Getting Started Guide to > simply *mention* the scaffold generator, but then show people the "correct" > way of generating a controller (rails g controller) and adding actions to it > one by one, adding a model as its needed, and using similar practices to how > you would do it in the "real world". > > The second way, and sorry if this sounds a little extreme, is to completely > remove the scaffold generator from the core of Rails itself. This means that > there wouldn't even be the option to run the scaffold generator for newbies. > You could then extract this out into a gem if you *really* wanted people to > have the option for it. However, if this path was taken it should be made > clear that this is not the "sanctioned" way to create controllers. > > Thoughts? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/s7O105GGnjAJ. > 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?hl=en. -- 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?hl=en.
