Patrick, Yes, that's it. It's a pretty straight forward approach but I will try the other approaches mentioned in this thread as well.
Thanks! Cheri On Jul 15, 11:33 am, Patrick Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, so really, the Preview action is just like a regular Show > action, except it has a few more options. > > If a post is valid, the user will be redirected to the preview. The > preview will show how the post looks, and has two buttons: "Publish > this post" and "Keep editing". > > Clicking "Publish this post" will set a flag on the record indicating > the post is valid and published. (You could use a boolean field > called :published for this. 0 = unpublished, 1= published.) You could > then redirect the user back to the main index for editing posts with > a success message like "Your post has been published". > > Clicking "Keep editing" will take the user to the Edit action (not > the New/Create action), where they can continue editing. When the > Edit action saves a post, it should redirect back to the Preview > action as long as the published? flag is not set. > > This is a good way to accomplish your goals without using overly > hacky methods. :) > > -- Patrick > > On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:14 am, liquid_rails wrote: > > > Hi Patrick, > > > I would prefer to have the preview on a separate page, so that if the > > object is validated, the user is sent to the preview page, and it it > > is not, the user is sent back to the form by using "render :action => > > 'new'", which will display the form + errors. On the preview page, > > there would be a choice to continue and agree to terms and conditions > > or to edit the post. The easiest way I see to do this is to actually > > create the post, and then if the user does not press continue or agree > > to the terms and conditions, delete the posting from the database. > > However, this would require a lot of unnecessary calls to the database > > (if there is a way to store and pass a temporary object), and would > > also cause posting id numbers to not be consecutive (say, if a user > > does not commit to the post.) I'm tempted to go with this approach > > because it is the easiest, however the inefficiency of this approach > > scares me. > > > Cheri --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ SD Ruby mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
