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 thread: rename the generator to something that makes it clear it's more for educational purposes than anything else. Something like "example_resource" might make it really, really obvious that the code is an example, shows all the possible actions, even has a couple of responders, etc... basically a way to see a good example of both code and forms that follow all of the naming conventions. But it's clear it's just an *example* and not simply a real starting point. $ rails g example_resource Product title sku Of course, it *is* a real starting point for those of us who understand Rails and use it like Jose does - we know how to customize what we want - but for those new to Rails it's clear it's just an example to help them understand the possibilities and get familiar with the conventions. I think also getting the name "resource" in there helps normalize our vocabulary a bit more instead of "scaffold" which isn't really used anywhere else in the framework. Jeff -- 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/-/NglvoM95wiIJ. 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.
