Re: [Rails-core] Namespaced actions in Rails 1.1?

2006-02-26 Thread Dave Thomas
On Feb 26, 2006, at 6:29 PM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote: The problem is what a mess that'll make of "rake -T". So before making such a mess, I want to have some good reasons for doing so ;) I thought the Rails 1 series was supposed to maintain compatibility. Apart from being cool, what

[Rails-core] Confused about the new generator behavior with migrations

2006-03-04 Thread Dave Thomas
Gentle Core Folk: I'm started trying to work with edge Rails, documenting how you'd create a Depot application with them. I'm probably missing something here, but as far as I can see, the new generator that creates the migration whenever your create a scaffold or model is not particularly

Re: [Rails-core] Confused about the new generator behavior with migrations

2006-03-04 Thread Dave Thomas
On Mar 4, 2006, at 18:43, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote: The auto-migration feature is really nice in a non-scaffolding workflow, though. The way I use and work with a Rails application is by creating one model at the time as they're needed to make the application work. So with a shop, I'd start

Re: [Rails-core] Confused about the new generator behavior with migrations

2006-03-04 Thread Dave Thomas
On Mar 4, 2006, at 19:00, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:So let's think about how we can fix scaffolding in a way that it doesn't require the database to exist before running. My first proposal for how to fix this is simply to have script/generate scaffold return to doing <%= form(@product) %> ins

Re: [Rails-core] Confused about the new generator behavior with migrations

2006-03-04 Thread Dave Thomas
Additionally, I think a significant amount of people like to design their dbs first, or in chunks instead of 1 model -> 1 migration. This is the case for myself. That's great. We still allow for that. There's all the opportunity in the world to go chasing waterfalls with --skip-migration, but it'

Re: [Rails-core] Confused about the new generator behavior with migrations

2006-03-04 Thread Dave Thomas
On Mar 4, 2006, at 19:52, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote: I agree that it's kinda nice, though. I just don't think its worth the pain. Where the pain being that 1) you can't run scaffold before setting up database (and it dies mid-air if you do), 2) the flow is backwards for migrations, 3) the form

Re: [Rails-core] [PATCH] Giving acts_as_nested_set some love and moving nodes around in a tree

2006-08-02 Thread Dave Thomas
On Aug 2, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov wrote: Particularly given the few people using it, and the 'fragility' of the code.. I don't think it's really "few". I still can't get it to work for my simple examples in the book, and I'm not documenting it in the second edition b