And apparently google groups no longer provides the 'reject with comment'
moderation option, which is why I handled like this. If any other group
mods know how to you can still do that, please let me know...
-- Chad
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Chad Woolley
wrote:
> Hi Duta,
>
> I think th
Hi Duta,
I think this ship sailed about four years ago, and in general it's not good
mailing list etiquette to reply to very old threads.
But you were nice and well intentioned, so I moderated this through. Have
a nice year too.
-- Chad
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Duta Ksp wrote:
> Hello
Hello Friends,
I am, Nyoman, a new bie from Bali, Indonesia.
For me, nothing is wrong to have scaffold. Why?
1. By having the scaffold, I have a 'mirror' where I can see the flow of
how the framework is working.
2. When I try to do the same manually, I can easily see my mistakes of what
made
I'm in agreement here. Renaming to prefix with example_ would solve
two issues. First, it would explicitly show it to be an example and
having to type that would reinforce that. Second, by also adding a
statement to the very top of each generated file via some header
addition would also help reinf
I wasn't sure where to jump into this thread, but my vote is to keep the
generator since it is a helpful "canonical example" for those trying to get
started.
However, I do suggest one change, that might sound a bit radical, but which
I think supports most of the thinking I'm seeing in this thre
I wasn't referring about custom scaffold generators.
I just said that it is pretty easy to customize the generators templates
for your needs:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/generators.html#customizing-your-workflow-by-changing-generators-templates
Best,
Rodrigo.
Em 10-03-2012 10:20, pferdefle
I think your first suggestion is the way to go.
Scaffold does have the benetif of giving the new-comer a first shot of
something "working", but as you rightly said, it tends to confuse a little.
Paul
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 7:30:39 PM UTC+1, Ryan Bigg wrote:
>
> Hello friends,
>
> It's been
Check out the generators guide. It contains info about how to modify the
default generators.
On 10/03/2012, at 5:20, pferdefleisch wrote:
> Quick question.
> Many posters have referred to creating their own custom scaffold
> generators instead of using the defaults.
> What is the most common
Quick question.
Many posters have referred to creating their own custom scaffold
generators instead of using the defaults.
What is the most common way to do this?
Custom gem? Engine in lib? Probably something else... I really like
this solution. It is exactly what I need on many projects.
A sim
Replies inline. You may want to ensure you have supplies before reading this.
It's a bit long.
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 6:45 AM, Trek Glowacki wrote:
> So, just to recap the flow of this conversation for myself:
>
> a) We, as developers *of* Rails (or at least those who lurk here), realiz
On Fri, March 9, 2012 09:45, Trek Glowacki wrote:
> So, just to recap the flow of this conversation for
> myself:
>
> a) We, as developers *of* Rails (or at least those who
> lurk here), realize that we're not the primary target of
> scaffolding. So, while it could be moved to gem for pros,
> it w
> With gems like inherited_resource, I am not sure what the use of scaffolding
> is.
Please note, from the inhereted_resources page:
Since Rails 3 came out, I have no longer used Inherited Resources. I
have found that the responders abstraction and
custom Rails generators offer the perfect balanc
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 gene
With gems like inherited_resource, I am not sure what the use of
scaffolding is.
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
So, just to recap the flow of this conversation for myself:
a) We, as developers *of* Rails (or at least those who lurk here), realize that
we're not the primary target of scaffolding. So, while it could be moved to gem
for pros, it would be hard on new developers if it wasn't baked in and
hi
My first gut feeling was "kill it, kill it". But then, I am the kind of
person that tends to spring-clean then regret throwing away too much.
The Wow factor is what got me into Rails in the first place, even though I
quickly refactored the scaffold code I had generated ... and never looked
back
I am not going into the discussion of how scaffold affect new comers but my
personal experience is:
I spend the first 15 minutes of each project customizing scaffold to do
exactly what I want.
I remove helpers generation, update the views to fit the layout, add
responders and so on.
Then I rely
> is there some way we can test and validate that
> this would make using rails for beginners easier in the long run?
> Serious question. I'll be happy to A/B test-teach this to a group of
> students if we could come up with some reliable way of measuring
> success.
Jumpstart Lab's intro to Rails
Given only those two options, I would lean toward the first.
I believe education is the answer here instead of all out removal.
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:30:39 PM UTC-6, Ryan Bigg wrote:
>
> Hello friends,
>
> It's been fun having the scaffold generator exist as a part of Rails since
> The
IMO, the best value of scaffolds is writing custom ones for common tasks in
your own application. I've done this on a number of occasions. It's easy
and I think it's a quite under-utilized feature of rails.
While basic CRUD is probably better delegated to engine's now. the core
concept in scaffold
Anecdotally I can remember a few times I was glad, scaffolds existed
like when teaching Rails classes to beginners, and having them excited
to get started so quickly. I can also remember more than a few times I
regretted using a scaffold after having to heavily remove or modify
most of the code it
21 matches
Mail list logo
