I would be in favor of either of these two options. I imagine extracting and gem-ifying the controllers would be a hassle, but then the default path for setting up a new view and controller action would require the user to think about what they are doing rather than just observe the magic.
Unfortunately, I think that even if we were to extract out to a gem that every non-official tutorial and book would just tell users to add "rails_controller_generators" to their gemfile as the first step, and the intended goal of this work would be completely bypassed. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Ryan Bigg <radarliste...@gmail.com> 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 post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
