So the 3kb thing is pretty important to you? Anyone else feel the same way? :)
— Jenna On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 10:17 PM, Nokan Emiro wrote: > Hi, > > As a simple user of Camping I would prefer to have a classic and > a "modern" one. in one gem or in separate ones, that's not an issue. > I would like to use the old one without modifications in my apps, and > if I need extra features, I can uncomment/inser a line like this: > > require 'camping' > require 'camping/session' > # require > 'camping_fancy_extra_things_like_before_n_after_controllers_and_static_file_servings_and_tricky_url_mappings_like_sinatras_etc' > Camping.goes :MyApp > module MyApp > ... > > But it's just a feature request... > > u. > > > 2012/4/15 Isak Andersson <icepa...@lavabit.com (mailto:icepa...@lavabit.com)> > > Ah, no I didn't mean maintaining two versions. Just making sure that > > everything in current Camping works as it should (not sure it does, my > > migrations aren't happening) and then freeze it. Call it Camping classic > > and then re-write it to be well designed for extensibility. With readable > > code and all. The names for things in our methods should be more then one > > character lång when we aren't worrying about size anymore. > > > > Cheers! > > > > Isak Andersson > > > > david costa <gurugeek...@gmail.com (mailto:gurugeek...@gmail.com)> skrev: > > > Hi all :) > > > I have been playing with Sinatra a lot lately and perhaps *some* things > > > are done easily there (URL mapping, static files) but being a DSL and not > > > a framework it is a bit different. For many things camping does the job > > > very well and overall I find it a more comprehensive solution than > > > Sinatra. > > > > > > For the classic/new versions I think the issue would be if the main code > > > maintainer (Magnus) should decide if he is willing to do that. Of course > > > other people could do that too but it would still be two versions to > > > maintain or, if you are freezing camping-classic as it is it should at > > > least have a light maintenance that ensures that it would still works > > > fine. > > > > > > Everyone can fork (e.g. camping-couch is a gem with couch db and no > > > active record) the only issue is maintenance and build momentum about it ! > > > Regards > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Isak Andersson <icepa...@lavabit.com > > > (mailto:icepa...@lavabit.com)> wrote: > > > > Right. We could just have a branch called "classic" on github. Leaving > > > > everything untouched. > > > > > > > > And then change the gem name to camping-classic or something. > > > > > > > > Maybe we should rewrite it afterwards (kind of). And make it backwards > > > > compatible with Camping applications. Just make the infrastructure > > > > simple and minimalistic. And make it easy to extend and configure. I > > > > think this would be the best thing ever for Camping more or less. > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > Isak Andersson > > > > > > > > Philippe Monnet <r...@monnet-usa.com (mailto:r...@monnet-usa.com)> > > > > skrev: > > > > > On one hand everyone is free to fork anything to change radical > > > > > direction. This would allow for the size and some design constraints > > > > > to be eliminated. But on the other hand, at this point in time (since > > > > > we are the new community) shouldn't we free ourselves from the > > > > > original constraints and just ignore the size aspect? I personally > > > > > think so. It does not mean we have to "go crazy" and make it large > > > > > and complicated (like Rails). > > > > > With the source being on Github, we can just designate the current > > > > > version as the "classic" (super micro version) and document very > > > > > explicitly that from now on we will be free of these constraints and > > > > > explain how people can still get the "classic" version. Since the > > > > > framework has proven extremely stable and resilient, this would not > > > > > prevent any tinkerer who needs the classic version to just do so. > > > > > Although it has been fun to reference the size when talking about > > > > > Camping, keeping it reasonably simple and small is good enough for me. > > > > > > > > > > "... free free set them free ..." > > > > > > > > > > On 4/13/2012 9:55 AM, Isak Andersson wrote: > > > > > > I agree, I'd like to see the way Camping works to grow in to > > > > > > something much more usable. Perhaps a fork is a good idea because > > > > > > the legacy would remain and all. But then in the fork we could deal > > > > > > with things that might be kind of annoying at times. And grow it > > > > > > with a steady pace. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we'd fork camping I think we should still stay as minimalistic > > > > > > as possible. Only adding the best things. And work on making it > > > > > > easy to extend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > Isak Andersson > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Everitt <dever...@innotts.co.uk> > > > > > > (mailto:dever...@innotts.co.uk) skrev: > > > > > > > There's a crucial point here... if 3k (the old 4k) is a 'proof of > > > > > > > concept' and a great exercise in programming skill, it isn't > > > > > > > something that most users will really worry about. If the 3k > > > > > > > limit has to be broken back up to 4 or even 5k to get some > > > > > > > added/altered/optional functionality that would help usability > > > > > > > for the rest of us, it's not an issue for me - DaveE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3kb is great and all, but it seems kind of dishonest if the > > > > > > > > framework isn't even really usable without a bunch of other > > > > > > > > gems and files and stuff. The conflict between 3/4kb and having > > > > > > > > robust well designed features often seems to haunt this > > > > > > > > project. Maybe time for a forking? I have next to no interest > > > > > > > > in 3kb as a real feature. > > > > > > Get the best selection of online sites here. Click Here to check > > > > > > them out! > > > > > > http://click.lavabit.com/dijea1fjy66jdsnewkjgbtrhtydj4b1pdtfh1jbkrr736gayp7sb/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Camping-list > > > > > > mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org > > > > > > (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > > > > Play Your Favorite Free Games Right On Your Browser - 100% Free! > > > > > http://click.lavabit.com/d663gxud89959x7mk3m3o7u8hp6r8h6yfbx1dkxash7qztba1ify/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Camping-list mailing list > > > > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > > > > > Get the best selection of cell phone sites here. Click Here to check them > > > out! > > > http://click.lavabit.com/6q99xb3hbqi7x1ayckxg8nri1ihmuwngfqcgf1dhq9abaf4d535y/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Camping-list mailing list > > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > >
_______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
