Forum: Rails Engines migrations concensus?

It appears from
http://rails-engines.org/news/2009/02/02/engines-i...

that migrations and copying public assets are no longer supported.

However, from

http://github.com/lazyatom/engines/blob/bc5cd970e0...

it appears that migrations are still supported via a rake task (for non
time stamped migrations), and from

http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/br...

that it still copies in public assets.  Anyone have any insights on this
one?


Was there ever any concensus on these?
Thanks!
-r

On 9 Oct 2009, at 13:40, Roger Pack wrote:

> It appears from
> http://rails-engines.org/news/2009/02/02/engines-i...
>
> that migrations and copying public assets are no longer supported.

Of the aspects of 'engines' that Rails 2.3 integrated, migrations and
public asset copying were not included

> that it still copies in public assets.  Anyone have any insights on  
> this
> one?

This is still in the plugin, which can be used along-side Rails 2.3

> Was there ever any concensus on these?
> Thanks!

Not really. Despite my RailsConf talk essentially being a plea that we
try and figure this stuff out together, participation really dropped
off to zero, except for the routing ticket.

- James

>
> Not really. Despite my RailsConf talk essentially being a plea that  
> we try and figure this stuff out together, participation really  
> dropped off to zero, except for the routing ticket.
>
> - James

I'm sorry I never came to the party with my ideas. I'm still using
rails 2.1 for production, so it doesn't affect me, but it might
eventually :(

Kind regards,
Samuel

> This is still in the plugin, which can be used along-side Rails 2.3

Nice.

> Not really. Despite my RailsConf talk essentially being a plea that we try
> and figure this stuff out together, participation really dropped off to
> zero, except for the routing ticket.

I thought that routing was also dropped on the floor--something of a
"if they want their own order to create routes in, they should tweak
it all themselves" or something?
Thanks for engines. Works pretty good.
-r

On 12 Oct 2009, at 15:22, Roger Pack wrote:

>> Not really. Despite my RailsConf talk essentially being a plea that  
>> we try
>> and figure this stuff out together, participation really dropped  
>> off to
>> zero, except for the routing ticket.
>
> I thought that routing was also dropped on the floor--something of a
> "if they want their own order to create routes in, they should tweak
> it all themselves" or something?

I believe I had a fairly iron-clad case that plugin routing without
precidence control was only useful in the simplest of cases, but it's
hard to convince a busy entrepreneur of much over IM, and the 'Russian
Dolls' vaporware (no offence, Yehuda) distracted from my own pleas, I
think.

Only time will tell what the future brings...

All the best,

- James