I might add fields to the category_feeds table, but for now it
strictly manages the many-to-many relationship between the categories
and feeds tables. If I run “script/generate model category_feeds” it
will generate the corresponding model? This won’t paint me into a
corner if I want to add fields to this table down the road (so long as
I manage the “rake db:migrate” commands)?
There’s nothing to be gained by “script/generate scaffold
category_feeds”?
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:16:55 +0100, gemblon (t.b.) wrote:
well, i think i explained that bad in my posting. just do the :through
method explained in the link, using a model. then you are prepared in
the future. if you scaffold to get the model, that is fine (in my
opinion), you are just set up for future stuff. you may not using the
scaffolded view or controller for now, but they are there if you need
them in the future.
Thanks. It’s one small step at a time for me on this. I’ll go with
generating a scaffold as it does more and doesn’t cause harm.
I might add fields to the category_feeds table, but for now it
strictly manages the many-to-many relationship between the categories
and feeds tables. If I run “script/generate model category_feeds” it
will generate the corresponding model? This won’t paint me into a
corner if I want to add fields to this table down the road (so long as
I manage the “rake db:migrate” commands)?
There’s nothing to be gained by “script/generate scaffold
category_feeds”?
thanks,
Thufir
well, i think i explained that bad in my posting. just do the :through
method explained in the link, using a model. then you are prepared in
the future. if you scaffold to get the model, that is fine (in my
opinion), you are just set up for future stuff. you may not using the
scaffolded view or controller for now, but they are there if you need
them in the future.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.