Hello, I've read the (many) re-posts about problems around scaffolding in Rails 2.0 and have followed a number of tutorials and fully understand "how to scaffold" from a technical perspective, but I don't understand the *mindset* of how to use the new scaffolding. It seems like a productivity- / agility- regress and I'm thinking I may have failed to properly grok the new setup. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm coming back to Rails after being in other toolkits for about 9 months. Thanks to the intrepid work of Sean Lynch at ( http://fairleads.blogspot.com/2007/12/rails-20-and-scaffolding-step-by-step.html ) I found a tutorial that would familiarize me with the raw "how to scaffold" material. I followed his tutorial's step of: ``ruby script/generate scaffold Movie'' Great! From that point I filled in the "columns" in the migration as I had done in Rails 1.x. All I should need to do is run ``rake db:migrate'' and try adding a new record via the dynamically-created view. When I started the server and navigated localhost:3000/movies I had the "create new" button. When I pushed that button there were no text widgets to enter *despite having defined the columns that corresponded to said widgets* having been added to the migration ( I have a lengthy blog post about how my diagnostics went, for anyone else's edification at http://stevengharms.net/?p=1063 ). In short the scaffold that had been created knew nothing of the columns I had added in the migration and, as such, the 'new' view had no widgets. This struck me as well, wrong. On Sean's post another user confirms the same experience. I have tried it with sqlite3 / mysql / postgres connectors. Research showed that the scaffold had remained static relative to the time that I had done the original aenemic invocation. Per ``script/ generate scaffold --help'': ./script/generate scaffold post` # no attributes, view will be anemic To fix this I had to re-issue the script/generate command with all the attributes in "final draft" mode ( ``script/generate scaffold movie title:string text:description one_sheet_url:string'' ) and then over- write the old templates ( output stored below, for legibility, Fig. 1). The solution implies: - You have to get the script/generate command's "attributes" arguments *perfect* at time of creation OR - You do this overwriting thing that I describe below. As I recall Rails 1.x's dynamic scaffolding allowed us to use a scaffold flexibly strictly based on migrations and rake db:migrate. This flexibility allowed us to "sketch" ideas very rapidly. Or is it considered a "Good Thing" that you get a "perfected" ``generate scaffold'' command at some point? If so, what's the reasoning? Am I missing some sort of rake command that "refreshes" the scaffold templates? Based on the comments at Sean's site and some of the questions in the comments to DHH's Rails 2. announcement I think there are others grappling with this quandry as well. Can anyone help? Steven ==Fig. 1== bash-3.2$ script/generate scaffold movie title:string text:description one_sheet_url:string exists app/models/ exists app/controllers/ exists app/helpers/ exists app/views/movies exists app/views/layouts/ exists test/functional/ exists test/unit/ overwrite app/views/movies/index.html.erb? (enter "h" for help) [Ynaqdh] y force app/views/movies/index.html.erb overwrite app/views/movies/show.html.erb? (enter "h" for help) [Ynaqdh] y force app/views/movies/show.html.erb overwrite app/views/movies/new.html.erb? (enter "h" for help) [Ynaqdh] y force app/views/movies/new.html.erb overwrite app/views/movies/edit.html.erb? (enter "h" for help) [Ynaqdh] y force app/views/movies/edit.html.erb identical app/views/layouts/movies.html.erb identical public/stylesheets/scaffold.css dependency model exists app/models/ exists test/unit/ exists test/fixtures/ identical app/models/movie.rb identical test/unit/movie_test.rb skip test/fixtures/movies.yml exists db/migrate Another migration is already named create_movies: db/migrate/ 001_create_movies.rb
on 02.01.2008 18:59
on 02.01.2008 19:06
Scaffolds != Rails They're a starting point, and as such just give you something to start with. Scaffolds aren't meant to be your whole application, so the code is treated just like code that's written independent of them: If your object model changes, then you need to change your views and controller logic to match. --Jeremy On Jan 2, 2008 12:58 PM, Steven G. Harms <steven.harms@gmail.com> wrote: > about 9 months. > Great! From that point I filled in the "columns" in the migration as I > been created knew nothing of the columns I had added in the migration > ./script/generate scaffold post` # no attributes, view will be anemic > - You do this overwriting thing that I describe below. > comments to DHH's Rails 2. announcement I think there are others > exists app/helpers/ > overwrite app/views/movies/new.html.erb? (enter "h" for help) [Ynaqdh] > exists test/fixtures/ > identical app/models/movie.rb > identical test/unit/movie_test.rb > skip test/fixtures/movies.yml > exists db/migrate > Another migration is already named create_movies: db/migrate/ > 001_create_movies.rb > > > > > -- http://www.jeremymcanally.com/ My books: Ruby in Practice http://www.manning.com/mcanally/ My free Ruby e-book http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/ My blogs: http://www.mrneighborly.com/ http://www.rubyinpractice.com/
on 02.01.2008 19:37
So your take could be summarized as: "The scaffold system is as good as it needs to be because you're only going to use it really briefly before you start fleshing out proper views". On Jan 2, 12:05 pm, "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcana...@gmail.com>
on 02.01.2008 19:38
Jeremy McAnally wrote: > Scaffolds != Rails > No, but the simplicity of the Rails 1.x scaffold is what 'sold' Rails to a lot of people (e.g. via the famous DHH Blog app video on the Rails site). Personally, I think it would have been nice to have kept the 'backwards compatibility' intact so that newcomers would have ready access to all the Rails 1.0 tutorials available rather than trying to follow those tutorials and immediately running up against the buffers, so to speak... ;-) best wishes Huw http://www.sapphiresteel.com Ruby In Steel for Visual Studio
on 02.01.2008 20:12
Huw, thanks for the ++, I dropped your tutorial's name in my diagnostic post :) http://stevengharms.net/?p=1063 Between your SS show-off and a few other tutorials I finally felt confident enough posting a complaint post ;) On Jan 2, 12:38 pm, Huw Collingbourne <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-
on 02.01.2008 20:14
I believe you can still install it from a plugin if you're really interested in it. I think dynamic scaffolding was a crutch that kept people from really getting Rails from the start (i.e., you didn't have to build views so they were missing out on that). I think making them generate the code gets them elbow deep in the sort of stuff they'll be writing quicker. --Jeremy On Jan 2, 2008 1:38 PM, Huw Collingbourne <rails-mailing-list@andreas-s.net> wrote: > follow those tutorials and immediately running up against the buffers, > > > > -- http://www.jeremymcanally.com/ My books: Ruby in Practice http://www.manning.com/mcanally/ My free Ruby e-book http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/ My blogs: http://www.mrneighborly.com/ http://www.rubyinpractice.com/
on 02.01.2008 21:21
Breaking backward compatibility is a luxury that only open-source developers can afford. It costs nothing to lose customers if they aren't paying. If you need to maintain your customer base (like, for example, Microsoft does) then you do anything to avoid breaking backward compatibility. See for example: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/11/06/999999.aspx I personally was quite shocked to see that Rails 2 knowingly broke things. Extracting to a plugin I can deal with. Outright removal is shocking. fredistic
on 02.01.2008 21:26
Even though this is a bit off-topic, Rails didn't arbitrarily break things. Developers who use Rails use the code: it's exposed, we manipulate it, and it's what we use in our applications. Therefore, it's in the best interest of everyone involved if Rails cuts out the cruft while pushing towards better solutions. If someone wants to keep using old feature, they're welcome to keep using the version of Rails they're using. I would hate to end up with a 35MB framework that could easily be 2MB or less but has kept so much stuff around in the interest of backwards compatibility. --Jeremy On Jan 2, 2008 3:20 PM, fredistic <fredistic@gmail.com> wrote: > things. Extracting to a plugin I can deal with. Outright removal is > shocking. > > fredistic > > > > > -- http://www.jeremymcanally.com/ My books: Ruby in Practice http://www.manning.com/mcanally/ My free Ruby e-book http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/ My blogs: http://www.mrneighborly.com/ http://www.rubyinpractice.com/
on 02.01.2008 21:26
Um, this looks interesting: http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/Scaffolding+Extensions+Plugin f
on 02.01.2008 22:12
On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:20 PM, fredistic wrote: > Breaking backward compatibility is a luxury that only open-source > developers can afford. It costs nothing to lose customers if they > aren't paying. If you need to maintain your customer base (like, for > example, Microsoft does) then you do anything to avoid breaking > backward compatibility. Fortunately, open-source projects are not run by money. They respect their users, and that's why there's a cycle of deprecation/removal going on. Warnings about deprecated stuff all over the place, documentation, etc. A major release is allowed to break things, that's what the 2.0 signals. You can put the version of Rails your application is known to run OK under vendor/rails, or revise and upgrade. To polish and continue improving something you need to add, but you need to cut as well. A major release allows cutting. -- fxn
on 03.01.2008 00:18
On Jan 2, 2008 4:11 PM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote: > their users, and that's why there's a cycle of deprecation/removal > going on. Warnings about deprecated stuff all over the place, > documentation, etc. > > A major release is allowed to break things, that's what the 2.0 > signals. You can put the version of Rails your application is known to > run OK under vendor/rails, or revise and upgrade. > > To polish and continue improving something you need to add, but you > need to cut as well. A major release allows cutting. And there's no one holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the new versions. You can wait until you are ready, the old versions are still there. Applications using frameworks like Rails are tied to the implementation of the version of the framework they use. This is okay as long as you can control if and when you move to a new version. Some years ago, there was a lot of interest in the idea of making framework-based operating systems. Here's a war story from those days: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles/2007/06/15/a-meeting-with-gill-bates -- Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
on 03.01.2008 04:00
On Jan 2, 2008 12:20 PM, fredistic <fredistic@gmail.com> wrote: > Breaking backward compatibility is a luxury that only open-source > developers can afford. Backwards compatibility is frequently very expensive. Microsoft in particular expends vast amounts of resources on backwards compatibility, and quite a bit of that effort is almost entirely useless to the vast majority of their customers. Would you rather have those engineers working on new/improved functionality, or on bug-for-bug compatibility that's only interesting to a tiny minority of users? Think of backwards compatibility as a tax that older users impose on newer users. That may be worth paying; newer users may themselves want backwards compatibility in the future. But the community may also decide that tax isn't worth paying. Older users may be required to spend resources to use newer versions of the system in question. That's OK; they're getting the benefits of development resources applied to the newer versions too. > If you need to maintain your customer base (like, for > example, Microsoft does) then you do anything to avoid breaking > backward compatibility. Not at all. Older users just have to spend some resources making sure they're good on the newer system. It's one of those engineering/business decisions that people make every day. -- James Moore | james@restphone.com Ruby and Ruby on Rails consulting blog.restphone.com
on 05.01.2008 09:28
Philosophical arguments aside, if they were going to take it out, they should have, well, just taken the whole thing out. I should just get an error when I try to create a scaffold if it isn't going to get made properly. All this about backward compatibility is all fine and good; but at the very least i should get a deprec message instead of having to hunt through the erb files in the vestigial scaffold remnants that don't work, re-rake, see that nothing changed, question my own sanity, then do a Google search and come here. It doesn't make sense.
on 05.01.2008 12:06
> All this about backward compatibility is all fine and good; but at the > very least i should get a deprec message instead of having to hunt > through the erb files in the vestigial scaffold remnants that don't > work, re-rake, see that nothing changed, question my own sanity, then do > a Google search and come here. It doesn't make sense. I suggest to delegate the scaffolding to a plugin which specializes with this task, for instance http://activescaffold.com/. (yeah that doesn't answer the philosophical question for sure!) best wishes ! Thibaut Barrère / LoGeek -- http://blog.logeek.fr - about writing software http://evolvingworker.com - tools for a better day
on 05.01.2008 18:04
So, Many older tutorials (and books) suggested a method of working models and relations like: generate model, scaffold, migrate, check, migrate, check... (e.g. the original blog-video and the depot tutorial) That is all deprecated and replaced by... what? How will the rewrites look? What is the new preferred way of working? I was quite comfortable with this way of working myself and I haven't really found something to fill the void yet. I don't want to sound critical. I would just love to get the scoop on what has made scaffolding more or less obsolete in the eyes of the core team. My current guess is that I should start using the console more when being interactive with models. cheers. Martin Westn On Jan 5, 12:05 pm, "Thibaut Barrère" <thibaut.barr...@gmail.com>
on 06.01.2008 00:13
Dynamic scaffolds give you squat. You got one line of code doing some
magical things so your browser renders some magical other things - don't
tell me you can learn the framework by staring at that line long enough
until it conveys meaning. It won't.
There's a place for it of course: marketing material. Shiny "oh look
this is so great" screencasts, which imply that your next big Web2.0
Buzzword-Compliant Social Networking app is just ten minutes away.
What you can do is script/generate scaffold Foo bar:text - that'll give
you stuff to look at, and if you don't like what you see you actually
have the chance to change stuff. Also, it does what the name implies
("scaffold", remember?), which is A Good Thing.
In other news, the "preferred way of working" is still, after all those
years, to actually writing code while knowing wtf is going on.
Oh, and another reason: everytime someone writes scaffold into their
text editor or irc client, god kills a kitten. true story.
Martin wrote:
> So,
> Many older tutorials (and books) suggested a method of working models
> and relations like:
> generate model, scaffold, migrate, check, migrate, check... (e.g. the
> original blog-video and the depot tutorial)
>
> That is all deprecated and replaced by... what?
> How will the rewrites look?
> What is the new preferred way of working?
>
> I was quite comfortable with this way of working myself and I haven't
> really found something to fill the void yet.
> I don't want to sound critical. I would just love to get the scoop on
> what has made scaffolding more or less obsolete in the eyes of the
> core team.
>
> My current guess is that I should start using the console more when
> being interactive with models.
>
> cheers.
> Martin Westn
>
> On Jan 5, 12:05�pm, "Thibaut Barr�re" <thibaut.barr...@gmail.com>
on 23.02.2008 12:26
Sooooo....I'm guessing there's no more code generation huh? These sorts of decisions usually make tons of sense to core developers on a framework. However, to the masses, it may be a quite different. Here is a newbie's perspective: I've been into web frameworks for about a year now. And the "magic" of code generation is what drew me in. CakePHP has a "bake" feature, which doesn't do a 1/4 of the stuff I've seen RoR do in the 12 hours I've been messing with it. I stayed a way from RoR this long for the simple fact that I didn't see the need tl learn Ruby, due to it's "interesting" syntax. Recently I saw a screen cast of the RadRails plugin and I was sold on RoR. Along with the fact that it's more established and has a larger following. From all the tutorials I've been reading the code generation was light years ahead of CakePHP. So I'm thinking, I'll install this guy, install that cool IDE, and get going with the Agive Web Dev. Book and a few tutorials. I figured the quickest way to get into RoR is to port some of my CakePHP apps: import that databases (schema conventions seem to mimic RoR), slap on some scaffolding to generate my MVC's, then peer into the code. There are sooooo many plugins there, I couldn't wait to get started on more complicated things like AJAX, Auth, etc. 12 hours later, I'm still trying to scaffold that stupid cookbook2 with two tables in it. I thought I was doing something wrong. I figured, it already got the schema of the database, how hard could it be to build the stupid models, controllers and views. To my great dismay, I've come to learn they have been removed? Wow. Sorry for the rant, but I don't really understand. What's the point of all the visual database design tools, if at the end of the day, I still gotta write everything in the migration syntax? I see where all the migration stuff can come in handy for "revisions", but when starting off, I don't get it. Yes, scaffolding will give you a lot more stuff than you need. But, IMO, it's much easier to sit on the delete key for a while, than it is to go write code that you don't understand. Can someone please tell me that I'm mistaken. And that there HAS to be a way around this? How do I get tons of SQL into an "initial" migration, so that I can generate MVC's from there? ThanX in advance.
on 23.02.2008 14:23
Scaffolding is great for newbies trying to learn the language, but for
us
more experienced folk, it's just more added cruft. We're so used to
writing
our own controllers the way we want to write them and different people
have
different ways to writing their controllers. Controllers are not that
hard
to write, really! I find the views much harder. Controllers are usually
7
actions to start off with and generally go something like this:
class LightController < ApplicationController
def index
@lights = Light.find(:all)
end
def show
@light = Light.find(params[:id])
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
flash[:notice] = "The light you were looking for could not be
found."
redirect_to lights_path
end
def new
@light = Light.new
end
def create
@light = Light.new(params[:light])
if @light.save
flash[:notice] = "A new light has been created."
redirect_to light_path
else
flash[:notice] = "A new light could not be created.
render :action => "new"
end
end
def edit
@light = Light.find(params[:id])
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
flash[:notice] = "The light you were looking for could not be
found."
redirect_to lights_path
end
def update
@light = Light.find(params[:id])
if @light.save
flash[:notice] = "This light has been updated."
redirect_to light_path
else
flash[:notice] = "This light could not be updated."
render :action => "edit"
end
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
flash[:notice] = "The light you were looking for could not be
found."
redirect_to lights_path
end
def destroy
@light = Light.find(params[:id])
@light.destroy
flash[:notice] = "The selected light has been destroyed."
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
flash[:notice] = "The light you were looking for could not be
found."
ensure
redirect_to lights_path
end
I've made a note to myself to make this into a generator. If you want to
use
it I'll be able to upload it somewhere tomorrow.
I doubt that you've spent 12 hours trying to scaffold cookbook 2. You've
probably spent 15 minutes on it and gone "this is too hard!" and gave
up.
Persist. If you have any issues, post them here. We can help.
on 23.02.2008 15:46
I guess the Rails core team has become a little out of touch with the newbie developer. But, frankly, that's a necessary step for the maturation of a project like this. 3 years ago, Rails needed all the mindshare it could get, and the infamous screencast was a powerful hook to draw people in. These days things are different. The core team is trying to Rails as powerful as possible for it's large userbase without bloat. So far the vision has been maintained extremely well. Maybe the decisions with scaffolding don't sit well with everyone. The problem is when debate happens in the core community, scaffolding is the last thing on everyone's list to worry about. I really sympathize with the effect of undocumented changes and out of date tutorials--I've been burned plenty. But scaffolding really is such an insignificant part of Rails that its flaws should have no bearing on your decision of whether or not to use Rails. Rails isn't a visual toolkit, it's a serious development framework. You just have to make it over two humps in the learning curve: the Rails API hump and then later the Dynamic Ruby hump and you'll be golden.
on 23.02.2008 16:30
Hi Everyone, I've read each post in this thread & I cannot believe the misunderstanding of 'scaffold' in rails 2.0.2 As Johannes puts it so well... >>>>>> Quote Dynamic scaffolds give you squat. You got one line of code doing some magical things so your browser renders some magical other things - don't tell me you can learn the framework by staring at that line long enough until it conveys meaning. It won't. <<<<<<<< End Quote Can I suggest those who are complaining about this change follow "Akita's" tutorial on rails 2, which should enlighten you to what the change is all about in a real context ! http://www.akitaonrails.com/2008/2/1/rolling-with-rails-2-0-pdf-version HTH - Dave Porter
on 23.02.2008 21:50
Maybe the use of the term scaffolding is wrong. I meant the code generation from the migration. Everyone here is always going to say that it's not hard to write your own controllers. I'm not saying it's hard. I'm saying, as a newbie developer in the framework, it's a great helping tool. For me, web development is about getting stuff done. But seriously, how does one "import" and already existing database design into a Rails Project? I'm talking about 100+ tables, with (on average) 20+ fields. Does one need to specify script/generate model (and all 20 fields)?
on 24.02.2008 13:34
On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, dasil003 <gabrie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess the Rails core team has become a little out of touch with the > newbie developer. But, frankly, that's a necessary step for the > maturation of a project like this. 3 years ago, Rails needed all the > mindshare it could get, and the infamous screencast was a powerful > hook to draw people in. > This is the first time I have been unpleasantly surprised by a comment on this forum. I wonder if this reflects the views of the core team. Working on creating 2 large apps based on rails 1, I am in the process of moving them to Rails 2. But I sense a significant distance between the core Rails Movers and "the Rest of us". So much of the documentation (which was in any case not ideal) has now been confused, and left behind. As an existing Rails developer, I can just about cope with the transition of how to convert to plugins for things like pagination, auto_complete etc. (But for a good summary of the changes I was forced to buy the peepcode pdf) I dont mind paying , but I would if I was just trying rails out for the first time . 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. Even the Agile Rails book is no longer being quoted as the Primary resource. I suspect if I were coming as a noob, then this amount of confusion, on top of the lack of a single documentation resource, would cause me to give up in disgust. Now I do not want to be a complainer. I do not have any problems with the Rails 2 direction, and getting to grips with REST routing and the various concepts is really good for me. But if there is no leg up for those entering the fray for the first time,and it is felt that maturing the product necessitates losing touch with the noob, there is a danger that Rails could become an old boy's club. (Purely my own opinion, but that would be a real shame - I have been a strong advocate of Rails.) Being a transition from 1 to 2, means this is Rails first experience in version transition. The rails team has got so much right that it would be a shame to dismiss the significance of the version transition. I think there is merit in the view that need for total backward compatibility can be dispensed with. But if that is done without clear documentation for the transition and its implications (prominantly on the Rails home site - cos that is the logical first place to look), then it is just going to leave confusion to eventually do its worst. comments made with good intentions - reflecting my own feelings along the way. Tonypm
on 24.02.2008 19:39
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:33 AM, tonypm wrote: > 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
on 24.02.2008 20:56
I've spoken with a lot of people who are in the process of learning Rails, and I believe the core team made a big mistake in removing the basic scaffold and renaming scaffold_resource to scaffold. I understand the thinking that led to this, and I don't object to the goal of pushing RESTful design. For experienced developers the change in the scaffold command is not a problem. But it unnecessarily broke nearly every existing tutorial. Using the "new" scaffold command in a tutorial that was written for the "old" scaffold command gives no errors, it just leads to code that doesn't work as intended. This has left a lot of people confused, frustrated, and less likely to continue with Rails. And it was completely unnecessary. Removing features is one thing. I don't regret the loss of dynamic scaffolding. And I don't want a bloated framework either. But taking a feature that is almost universally used in introductory tutorials, and creating a new feature that works in a fundamentally different way but has the *exact same name*, is, in my opinion, just a bad idea. If the core team was determined to dump the old scaffold, they should have replaced the generator output with a message that you should use scaffold_resource instead, and explain that it works differently. Of course this is all water under the bridge, and I suppose I shouldn't complain since it gives an advantage to sites such as mine that will have current tutorials, but I hope the core team thinks about the unnecessary pain this caused for many people trying to learn the platform the next time they consider redefining what a feature does. Please don't reuse existing names to make them do different things in silent and confusing ways. Michael Slater www.BuildingWebApps.com www.LearningRails.com
on 25.02.2008 09:00
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Actually, I want to apologize about my post. It was one of those you regret as soon as you push the send button. I really like Ruby and Rails. I must have had a frustrating day I guess. I agree with you that it is important that the core team focus on the development of the project. If the way Rails is being developed is what results in Rails being just so good - then who am I to complain? One thing I have decided to do is to keep more abreast of the discussions on where Rails is heading and why, but I'm not sure at the moment where that sort of discussion might be visible. Is there such a thing as a core team discussion forum that is visible to the general surfer - or is it a case of subscribing to some key blogs? Tonypm
on 25.02.2008 09:24
sorry, I should have acknowledged the bloggs you already mentioned. I have now subscribed to err.the_blog, I currently use will_paginate, but will take a look at paginating_find. Tonypm
on 25.02.2008 10:13
OK - so I'm having a bad day and hit send before I'd finished!! I should have added that: http://ryandaigle.com/ http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/ http://calicowebdev.com/blog look to be really good resources that I have now subscribed to: I agree with you about avoiding scaffolding. Actually, I tend to keep a sample scaffold to hand as a 'for example', but that's about all. I note your the reference in your blog to make_resourceful. I suspect there may well be times when this could make life easier. Thanks Tonypm
on 25.02.2008 14:38
Baz, You don't have to read very far into this thread to realize that most of the responders, and most of the developers making decisions about Rail's long term direction, are consultants or independent software houses working on de novo apps, just like 37Signals. So, you may not get many replies to your question: > But seriously, how does one "import" and already existing database design > into a Rails Project? I'm talking about 100+ tables, with (on average) 20+ > fields. because that's not a problem for them. Obviously, the old introspecting scaffold that responded to existing tables is of little interest for them; in their world, the tables don't exist until they are designing their app, or they are just tweaking an app they've already written. So, anyone who questions the elimination of the old-school scaffolding is assumed to be a newbie trying to avoid learning the framework. Enterprise developers, who don't have the luxury of designing from the ground up, are just a tiny minority in the Rails world. I'm afraid that decisions like this one will be the pattern for some time to come. If they had made the "introspecting scaffolding" a plug-in, I might have thought the needs of enterprise developers were at least considered, but they completely eliminated it so it dies without a whimper. Maybe the framework will be strong enough to find use in the enterprise anyway, and maybe not. >For me, web development is about getting stuff done. Yeah, me, too. I've been using the RoR framework for nearly two years; I'm not a newbie; I'm perfectly comfortable writing controllers. Like you, I've inherited some tables with a jillion columns, and it is far faster to delete some auto-generated code than to type in all those column names/types. So, here's a thread that actually addresses your concern: http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_frm/thread/6b745a5475b29231/15335cc35b8e90ad?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=scaffolding# Brian Hogan has a gem that will scaffold the forms, at least. http://scaffoldform.rubyforge.org/ I modified his scaffoldform to make a generator that does something similar for the show and index pages as well. It's not quite ready for prime time, but it works for what I need. It is called scaffold_reflect: you put it where Rails expects to find generators and then use scaffold_reflect TableName and it makes index, show, edit form, and new form pages for the table, with every field (except _id fields) represented by a reasonable HTML entity. Similar to the old-school scaffolding, except that every field is spelled out there ready to modify or delete. No need to type in the structure of a table that already exists, right? If you're interested, send me an email and I'll package it up for you and send it on. Even with its little peculiarities, it is a lot faster than the new scaffolding for an existing table. Ron
on 25.02.2008 17:16
I'm not apposed to learning the framework. Truth be told, I don't even know Ruby yet. But, as I said before, the scaffolding generation functionality that I've seen in other frameworks, has been invaluable to me learning the framework. But, I suppose this is one step further to ensuring that people use migrations. But, then I'm still confused. What is the point of script/generate then? Why make a view with fields? Since these changes are incremental, won't it just overwrite the that view for the next migration change you make? Or are you supposed to relist ALL fields PLUS additional for every new generation? Or maybe all these questions will be revealed to me much later after I finish Agile Web Dev. and take a hefty look at the chapter on Migrations? But then again, this was written for 1.2, so who knows? -- Baz L Just thinking aloud. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:38 AM, paron <rphillips@engineer.co.summit.oh.us>
on 25.02.2008 17:17
Sorry Ron, forgot to add: Your reply was much appreciated. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:38 AM, paron <rphillips@engineer.co.summit.oh.us>
on 25.02.2008 17:29
On 25 Feb 2008, at 13:38, paron wrote: > enterprise anyway, and maybe not. It was made into a plugin : http://dev.rubyonrails.org/browser/plugins/scaffolding There are also much nicer looking alternatives such as activescaffold Fred
on 25.02.2008 17:35
Again I say, scaffolding is a confusing term use. I'm referring to the scaffolding that generates code. I am totally with everyone, when they say that the auto scaffolding feature is a bit useless. Fine for a quick demo, but .... On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Frederick Cheung <
on 25.02.2008 18:11
> It was made into a plugin :http://dev.rubyonrails.org/browser/plugins/scaffolding > There are also much nicer looking alternatives such as activescaffold > > Fred Is that really where people are expected to go to get plugins? How do they find it? I googled pretty extensively, but didn't see it. Is there some link somewhere beside this thread? Well, I'm glad the plugin's out there, at least, even if there's no way to find it without wading through a half-dozen lectures about how "scaffolds are bad" and implying "only a lazy, shallow developer would even ask." Thank you for answering the question. It will probably cost you some 'Rails cool guy' points. However, if your response, or one of the few others like it, had come before all the sermons, it would have left a very much more attractive picture of the Rails community. Ron
on 25.02.2008 18:19
On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:38 AM, paron wrote: > enterprise anyway, and maybe not. You may or may not be correct about the logic behind extracting dynamic scaffolding. I would ask that you consider several resources before drawing too many conclusions: http://dev.rubyonrails.org (in particular ghttp://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/6306 , where you can see that the extraction of dynamic scaffolding from edge happened almost a *year* ago) http://activescaffold.com/ (a capable -- some might even say "sexy" -- plugin for creating nice interfaces to your models) http://magicmodels.rubyforge.org/ (Dr Nic's magic models, which give you the luxury to support the 200 tables in your legacy database with very little programmer interaction) I am having a hard time viewing the Rails community as one with a narrow perspective that forecloses various aspects of Web development. One key to working with open source tools as opposed to, say, .Net or J2EE, is that you have to spend the time to watch what's going on in the community. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but all the complaints about scaffolding breaking tutorials, or worse making Rails inappropriate for certain categories of development was something that was discussed and decided many moons ago. It shouldn't be a shocker, and I would suggest that the tutorials should share the responsibility of staying current. This is all opinion on my part, so take it with a grain of salt :)
on 25.02.2008 18:40
On Feb 25, 2008, at 9:10 AM, paron wrote: > > Ron You may be interested to note that when 2.x was released and people initially felt the pain, I went to the trouble of putting a post on this mailing list detailing the issues (http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/138533 ). As I say in the post, I don't use scaffolding, but I am sympathetic to those who are just coming up to speed so I wrote what I could discover about scaffolding. It feels just a little unfair to hear the Rails community characterized as one that awards "Rails cool guy" points. This subject has been discussed on the ML several times and while I don't discourage further discussion, using the context of previous information put forward on the same subject can be useful and perhaps save a bit of time. I don't think "only a lazy shallow developer would even ask," but I do think a responsible developer should evaluate existing and viable options before complaining that the scaffold system is gone, leaving a void that somehow makes Rails less usable. A good deal of hard work has gone into making the existing scaffolding (script/generate scaffold) follow the RESTful conventions. Further, much hard work has gone into plugins such as ActiveScaffold, will_paginate, paginating_find, etc.
on 25.02.2008 20:35
s. ross -- Our posts crossed in the mails, making mine look like an especially combative reply to yours, which was not my intent. Please let me try again. > You may be interested to note that when 2.x was released and people > initially felt the pain, I went to the trouble of putting a post on > this mailing list detailing the issues (http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/138533 > ). As I say in the post, I don't use scaffolding, but I am sympathetic > to those who are just coming up to speed so I wrote what I could > discover about scaffolding. Any of the links you sent would have been a fine reply to the OP or to Baz, as would Frederick's. Then, perhaps, all those sermons, if people felt they were necessary. > It feels just a little unfair to hear the Rails community > characterized as one that awards "Rails cool guy" points. This subject > has been discussed on the ML several times and while I don't > discourage further discussion, using the context of previous > information put forward on the same subject can be useful and perhaps > save a bit of time. Agreed, it would have been much more to the point if some of the earlier posters had done that. I'd have traded one post with an on- topic page slap for all the lectures. > I don't think "only a lazy shallow developer would even ask," but I do > think a responsible developer should evaluate existing and viable > options before complaining that the scaffold system is gone, leaving a > void that somehow makes Rails less usable. A good deal of hard work > has gone into making the existing scaffolding (script/generate > scaffold) follow the RESTful conventions. Further, much hard work has > gone into plugins such as ActiveScaffold, will_paginate, > paginating_find, etc. I freely admit that many people a great deal smarter than me worked very hard on the decisions and the code. Their decisions and code make a great deal of sense from the POV of a developer working from a blank db or a db they've developed using migrations, perhaps. However, from the (limited) POV of a developer stuck with the task of hanging a web front end on 100+ existing tables of 20+ columns each, hand-coding 2000+ field name/type combos was a tremendous step backward. Going back to the old scaffolding was a not-unreasonable question from his POV, and he's not alone. Thanks again for the links, and the research you did. Believe me, that plugin is not easy for a newbie or even a fairly oldbie to find. Those links will make it easier for people to choose for themselves which approach makes sense. Ron
on 03.03.2008 13:17
I'm a complete n00by on rails ATM, started learning sometime 2 days ago.
The following is not the best of tutorials but hopefully it should help
someone like myself and save them the time and trouble.
Disclaimer: I'm presuming you are on windows since that's the
troublemaker in the bunch. I'm also presuming some prerequisites have
been met, namely: you have mysql with a root password (it's okey to have
none, just ignore a step bellow), I'm also presuming you have ruby (and
commands such as ruby work for you). Since it's in context I'll also
presume you have rails 2.0.2 installed, or some other version of rails
from the ("cursed" by the user base) 2.0.x series.
-- rails 1.2.6
The instructions provided (and repeated) in a few of the posts above
generally won't work. At least for me installing rails 1.2.6 while still
holding onto 2.0.2 and it's dependencies proved a major head ache, thing
simply won't work to the fullest, just like the scaffold
method/generator.
To run on rails 1.2.6 and play & watch the famous blog in 15 minutes
video, do the following. ('#' mark comments, ignore them; they're likely
to cause errors)
# uninstall everything, like this...
gem uninstall rails
# if you have multiple version a prompt will appear,
# simply uninstall everything! and re-install, like so
gem install rails --version 1.2.6 --include-dependencies
You can now go through everything and have fun.
Basic round down, the dynamic scaffold thing apparently has no other use
then to generate table in which it places the fields of the database
tables (excepting :id) under the format: <b>NameField:</b>
<field-appropriate-tag /> int crappy tr/td tags. Note how the <b> tag is
deprecated and is just a style thing not a semantic tag. This behavior
is reflected in the currently available static scaffold, which pretty
much makes both of them not very impressive in my eyes.
-- rails 2.0.2 or perhaps later version
(blog in 15minutes equivalent tutorial)
- short version -----
# Blog in 30s
# You are root with password ''
rails -d mysql ruby_log
cd ruby_log
rake db:create
ruby script/generate scaffold Post title:string created_at:datetime
updated_at:datetime body:text
rake db:migrate
ruby script/server
# The other stuff works as well, but really doesn't change the semantics
much.
# Customize the view to your hearts content.
# has_many, has_one, belongs_to
- long version ------
Before I start detailing commands and movie parts I would just like to
point out that the movie seems to be aimed at the very beginner and some
parts (I suspect) were deliberately shown as they were so as to not make
the public feel like total strangers.
Let's get it started.
If you don't already installed then I "suggest" (it's not a requirement)
you install cygwin, it will give you most of the useful linux commands,
if you wish you should be able to run the scripts as in the movie with
the ./ notation instead of calling ruby. Just a suggestion.
* movie scene
# how I did it/ commented out line
> command line
* creating a blog
# we want a mysql database, so...
> rails -d mysql ruby_log
# see more commands by just typing "rails"
# navigate to the root of your project
> cd ruby_log
# extra: something I always use when programs have logs.
# First, open a cygwin window, navigate down
# find your project root directory
# Now use tail -f on the useful logs, for example
> tail -f log/development.log
# now you see all the SQL as it's made
# you can change to test etc depending on your needs
# Go to and open 'config/database.yml'
# Insert your password in there.
# execute the following to get a few useful files up
# create the database:
> rake db:create
# create a schema file
# if it's empty then this is the first time you used
# tried to make a project with this name, if not
# the command failed (showed you squat, but check the log)
# you've just dumped the old schema (tables & table structure)
> rake db:schema:dump
# Tip. You generally have a corresponding 'destroy' method for
# any create/generate method you have, for example:
# > rake db:drop
# > ruby script/destroy model Post
* he creates a Blog controller and shows you how to
* use render :text => "something" or View to show things
* he creates index.rhtml for the demonstration
# I created a index.html.erb (.erb is the new convention for
# rails files), it has to be 'index' btw, naming it 'view' etc
# won't work.
* he demonstrates the 'scaffold :post' method
# Skip. it's useless, unnecessary etc
* he then uses the scaffold generate directive to create a
* scaffold.
* > ./script/generate scaffold Post Blog
# that's the do-thingy that just won't work
# I should note he makes note in a few places that scaffolding
# is anything but rails and the misconception is widespread
# I'll continue through the commands at this point in time
// Migrations:
# But first, a side note:
# If you want to create a "model", then don't do it as he did it!
# Use migrations!
# Either:
> ruby script/generate model User
# just as a example. Go to db/migrations,
# there should be only one there (insert things like this in there:
# t.string :nick, :name, :type
# ^ this creates 3 columns (nick, name, type all of type string)
# to create the database entry run
> rake db:migrate
# you can also create migrations by themselves
> ruby script/generate migration AddSignature
# go to 002_.... in migrations and add something like this to .up
# alter_table :users do |t|
# t.text :signature
# end
# and to .down
# drop_column :signature
# Now migrate from v1 to v2
> rake db:migrate
# your users now have a new column: "signature"
# if you migrate down, say go to v1
> rake db:migrate VERSION=1
# now column 'signature' doesn't exist anymore
# of course previous signature data has been lost also!
# if you want to start with your databases empty, run
# > rake db:migrate VERSION=0
# if you want to wipe them out, presumably intending to
# delete the project files as well, run:
# > rake db:drop
# we don't want table "users" to complete the videos objective so do a:
> ruby script/destroy model User
// End migration explanation
# The old 'scaffold' entry was somewhat more flexible, it would
# read the databases model of the specified table, and then
# display them in the order the were in the database.
# You could also modify the database and see changes live.
# The new one is no longer live and you no longer specify an
# existing method, instead it's a macro for creating a:
# Model, Migration (Model --> Database thing), Controller & View
# complete with comments and useful methods.
# To create the do-post-thingy in the video write as follows:
> ruby script/generate scaffold Post title:string created_at:datetime updated_at:datetime body:text
# update database to latest version
> rake db:migrate
# start server
> ruby script/server
# wait for it to boot...
Go to http://localhost:3000/posts and check out this blog in 60s
(just think how fast you can copy/paste from here)
---- My newbie opinion --
I feel it's unnecessary, I don't hold any grudge since I'm used every
dev-thing kicking me in the balls at one point or another. It's honestly
poor work and defect thinking. If it works and it isn't hurting anybody,
don't hurt the community by removing it. It's honestly useless, a piece
of nothing, I think it's over-praised and over-bashed, it's not that
defective and not that important. It could have been dealt with as a
impassible error, a "won't go production with it", I'm sure other
elegant solutions also exist. Hiding it simply makes people want; people
who would have used it would know it's useless.
I don't really buy into Ron's argument. If you are troubled inserting 20
or so fields, as key:value pairs then I, presented with this situation,
would have to consider the following: what is the significance/condition
of the fields that would result in such a large number, is it
outdated/deprecated/insignificant or simply easily generated data? can I
simplify, re-structure or back it up safely and deal with it later? Is
it end user form info?, in which case the question becomes: If *I* have
so much trouble inserting key:value (20 per table was it?) just what am
I asking my end users to do? (since they have to insert more complex
data)
Steven G. Harms wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've read the (many) re-posts about problems around scaffolding in
> Rails 2.0 and have followed a number of tutorials and fully understand
> "how to scaffold" from a technical perspective, but I don't
> understand the *mindset* of how to use the new scaffolding. It seems
> like a productivity- / agility- regress and I'm thinking I may have
> failed to properly grok the new setup. In the interest of full
> disclosure, I'm coming back to Rails after being in other toolkits for
> about 9 months.
>
> Thanks to the intrepid work of Sean Lynch at (
> http://fairleads.blogspot.com/2007/12/rails-20-and-scaffolding-step-by-step.html
> ) I found a tutorial that would familiarize me with the raw "how to
> scaffold" material.
>
> I followed his tutorial's step of:
>
> ``ruby script/generate scaffold Movie''
>
> Great! From that point I filled in the "columns" in the migration as I
> had done in Rails 1.x. All I should need to do is run ``rake
> db:migrate'' and try adding a new record via the dynamically-created
> view.
>
> When I started the server and navigated localhost:3000/movies I had
> the "create new" button. When I pushed that button there were no text
> widgets to enter *despite having defined the columns that corresponded
> to said widgets* having been added to the migration ( I have a lengthy
> blog post about how my diagnostics went, for anyone else's edification
> at http://stevengharms.net/?p=1063 ). In short the scaffold that had
> been created knew nothing of the columns I had added in the migration
> and, as such, the 'new' view had no widgets.
>
> This struck me as well, wrong. On Sean's post another user confirms
> the same experience. I have tried it with sqlite3 / mysql / postgres
> connectors.
>
> Research showed that the scaffold had remained static relative to the
> time that I had done the original aenemic invocation. Per ``script/
> generate scaffold --help'':
>
> ./script/generate scaffold post` # no attributes, view will be anemic
>
> To fix this I had to re-issue the script/generate command with all the
> attributes in "final draft" mode ( ``script/generate scaffold movie
> title:string text:description one_sheet_url:string'' ) and then over-
> write the old templates ( output stored below, for legibility, Fig.
> 1).
>
> The solution implies:
> - You have to get the script/generate command's "attributes"
> arguments *perfect* at time of creation OR
> - You do this overwriting thing that I describe below.
>
> As I recall Rails 1.x's dynamic scaffolding allowed us to use a
> scaffold flexibly strictly based on migrations and rake db:migrate.
> This flexibility allowed us to "sketch" ideas very rapidly. Or is it
> considered a "Good Thing" that you get a "perfected" ``generate
> scaffold'' command at some point? If so, what's the reasoning? Am I
> missing some sort of rake command that "refreshes" the scaffold
> templates?
>
> Based on the comments at Sean's site and some of the questions in the
> comments to DHH's Rails 2. announcement I think there are others
> grappling with this quandry as well. Can anyone help?
>
> Steven
>
>
> ==Fig. 1==
> bash-3.2$ script/generate scaffold movie title:string text:description
> one_sheet_url:string
> exists app/models/
> exists app/controllers/
> exists app/helpers/
> exists app/views/movies
> exists app/views/layouts/
> exists test/functional/
> exists test/unit/
> overwrite app/views/movies/index.html.erb? (enter "h" for help)
> [Ynaqdh] y
> force app/views/movies/index.html.erb
> overwrite app/views/movies/show.html.erb? (enter "h" for help)
> [Ynaqdh] y
> force app/views/movies/show.html.erb
> overwrite app/views/movies/new.html.erb? (enter "h" for help) [Ynaqdh]
> y
> force app/views/movies/new.html.erb
> overwrite app/views/movies/edit.html.erb? (enter "h" for help)
> [Ynaqdh] y
> force app/views/movies/edit.html.erb
> identical app/views/layouts/movies.html.erb
> identical public/stylesheets/scaffold.css
> dependency model
> exists app/models/
> exists test/unit/
> exists test/fixtures/
> identical app/models/movie.rb
> identical test/unit/movie_test.rb
> skip test/fixtures/movies.yml
> exists db/migrate
> Another migration is already named create_movies: db/migrate/
> 001_create_movies.rb
on 03.03.2008 13:57
> I don't really buy into Ron's argument. If you are troubled inserting 20 > or so fields, as key:value pairs then I, presented with this situation, > would have to consider the following: what is the significance/condition > of the fields that would result in such a large number, is it > outdated/deprecated/insignificant or simply easily generated data? can I > simplify, re-structure or back it up safely and deal with it later? Is > it end user form info?, in which case the question becomes: If *I* have > so much trouble inserting key:value (20 per table was it?) just what am > I asking my end users to do? (since they have to insert more complex > data) If it were only 20 fields, I might have said the same. It was not -- he had 100+ tables of 20+ fields each -- or 2000+ field:value pairs. He specifically said that they were legacy tables, so all your (perfectly valid) db design critique is beside the point. The users already insert that complex data, or have already done so (if it's a decision support db, as I suspect.) So, given those conditions, I stand by my position that a scaffolding that introspects the table was the best answer. Too bad it was eliminated from the Rails defaults without providing a clear path to replace it.
on 03.03.2008 14:03
Hi --
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Steven G. Harms wrote:
> about 9 months.
I don't think this is exactly the philosophical area you were asking
about, but my biggest problem with the new scaffolding is that it
reinforces the notion that a "resource" is a controller/model stack.
That, in turn, means that it discourages recognition of those cases
where a resource might involve something other than a one-to-one
correspondence between a controller and a model.
In REST, there's nothing about the concept of "resource" that implies
database persist