Why You Shouldn't Use Rails' Scaffolded Controllers
codeulate.com
codeulate.com
The fact that the author uses dateless posts and comments (SEO) does not add to its credibility for me, but user-hostile design sticks out like a sore thumb for me so that could just be my own peccadillo.
> "There is nothing in the post to indicate that the InheritedResources gem is any more state of the art than standard scaffold controllers"
I think you may have missed my point (which, as the author, is probably my fault) :) It's not that inherited_resources controllers do anything better than the standard controllers. It's that each controller does exactly the same thing, but one is 81 lines shorter.
> "The fact that the author uses dateless posts and comments (SEO) does not add to its credibility for me"
There are dates on each post (check the top left). Also, you say credibility goes down because I have comments (which you seem to think are for SEO purposes)? I'm afraid I don't follow at all.
Sure, it's 81 lines shorter, but I don't know what's going on there, either. Its one thing to express a method in an elegant fashion, but an entirely different thing to hide it off someplace, which is how I read what is happening here. I'm guessing there are some instance variables available afterwards? Plus, it's an additional dependency.
And yeah, I read the title "Why You Shouldn't Use Rails' Scaffolded Controllers" and "...the state of the art has moved on" to mean that what you were talking about was supposed to be better.
Sure, it's 81 lines shorter, but I don't know what's going on there, either.
Sure, but I'd imagine most developers have the default controller actions memorized by now (I do). So, this class you're inheriting from does exactly what you're used to. Only now, you don't have repeated controller code and functional tests everywhere. Really, this is an application of the DRY principle to app/controllers.