Re: Is the rails 2.0 scaffold system philosophically ( not t

> On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:33 AM,tonypmwrote:
>
> > So many of
> > the tutorials are now going to just not work for Rails 2 and are going
> > to point in the wrong direction, particularly as regards REST (and
> > consequently the scaffold) and routing which is getting a fairly high
> > profile.
>
> @tonypm--
>
> These changes cannot have come as a surprise to anyone who was
> tracking Rails. As with anything that has a good deal of Internet
> buzz, some of that buzz will not be updated to reflect the news.
> Still, the benefits of extracting certain functionality from Rails
> core was articulated very early. It is not the fault of the Rails core
> team that so much of the existing information you can turn up using
> Google focuses on earlier versions of Rails.
>
> Several blogs have meticulously tracked the changes as Rails core has
> merged them into edge:
>
> http://ryandaigle.com/http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/
>
> Are two good places to look. I single these two out, not because they
> are the only places to look, but rather because they are the first
> that come to mind. I even wrote a post on upgrading to Rails 2.0 that
> addressed dynamic scaffolding:
>
> http://calicowebdev.com/blog/show/17
>
> The regrettable thing about this is that dynamic scaffolding was such
> an eye-popping feature that people got used to highlighting it as an
> example of the true productivity one might achieve using Rails. In
> practice, many Rails 1.x (if not most) developers wound up creating
> their own actions and views to replace the dynamic scaffolds, yet the
> code remained in the Rails codebase. That became, essentially, dead
> code in the production codebase. Yet is cost time for the core team to
> maintain. There are other dynamic scaffold solutions available, and
> while not covered exhaustively in the "how-to's" that are so pervasive
> on the Web, they may do an even better job that Rails' original one.
>
> Pagination is another place that may disappoint. But Rails pagination
> was not considered a great solution. Many, many posts to this list
> complained about poor performance. Several replacements have emerged
> that are superior, the most popular being will_paginate (http://errtheblog.com
> ). Another one is paginating_find (http://cardboardrocket.com/pages/paginating_find
> ), which I've used to good effect in some applications.
>
> I encourage you to consider the Rails core team a limited resource and
> ask yourself whether you would prefer they spend their time keeping up
> with legacy features (even though there are better alternatives for
> them) or pushing forward.
>
> My $.02