On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 22:27, Nokan Emiro <uzleep...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For now I'm feeling like a pretty bad "maintainer". I'm not using >> Camping enough to see where things need to be fixed, I'm crappy at >> actually shipping stuff, and I'm not sure if I believe that Camping is >> a correct starting point for a new framework. > > Like so many times before, I have a few silly questions again:
There's no silly questions; just puzzled people who don't dare to ask :-) > - Why do you think so that Camping isn't a good starting point? I like centralized routing (config/routes.rb vs having routes in the controllers). It's also easier to combine a Sinatra-style-framework with centralized routing: just allow routing to a block, and `get "/" do … end` is as natural as `routes.get "/", :to => "home#index"`. I prefer Sinatra-style routes over regexps. Camping's module magic is just plain bad style. Inheritance is easier to work with. Mapping one URL to one class is a little too verbose for me; I end up with tons of classes and it's hard to see which classes that actually work on the same type of data. For controller classes, Rails-style is more pragmatic. It's just 4k; that's hardly any starting point at all :-) > - What is the problem with Camping in your opinion? There's not a "problem" with Camping. It's an elegant piece of code; it solves HTTP in a surprisingly "correct" way, although it's not always so pragmatic/practical. > - What does a good framework provide for you? > > ...and the most stupid one: > > - Why are you talking about a "new framework"? Why don't we > rewrite Sinatra, Ramaze or whatever over Camping? They have > an interface that's used by others... I just feel like the whole Ruby framework community stagnated a few years after we got Rack. The moment Rack became properly implemented everywhere it lacked any kind of EventStream/WebSocket/long-polling-support. Everything since then has been hacked on top. Rails provides ActiveRecord for database access, but more and more stuff these days are using HTTP. I believe that a true *web* framework should provide a HTTP client/user-agent too. Net::HTTP doesn't cut it (no persistant connection support in stdlib; rather verbose/inconsistent and no cookie-jar). There are other libraries, but these have their own conventions and limitations. _______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
