Hi James, Thanks for the reply.
On 12/30/06, James Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Plugin load order will feature in 1.2, which makes things a lot easier > (politically, at least) for people who want to use the engines plugin; > more about that later. As for the other features.... it's tricky. It's > often far simpler to monkey patch a feature in, than it would be to > provide a complete 'proper' patch that Rails could adopt. Other > aspects, such as the 'code mixing', are fairly magical, and not > suitable for core at all, imho. Maybe the magic could still happen outside of Rails but the Rails api would be defined in such a way that the magic wouldn't be hitting a moving target with each Rails release? The only reason I ask is that I am sure that it is a lot of work over time for you to keep readjusting the monkey patching. Also I imagine that there are developers that wouldn't use engines because they know it is monkey patching and might break in the future "and what if James Adam looses interest in engines!?!?!?!" To a certain degree this makes me a little nervous. I don't need any professional consoling about it but it would certainly be great if engines keep moving in the direction of somewhat more officially supported. > A lot of the work in the engines plugin is providing a better > infrastructure in which plugins can operate - creating object > instances to represent plugins, and so on. Some of these might be 2.0 > candidate features; we'll see what David's plans are for that as time > goes on. Perhaps any tickets for changes shouldn't have your name attached? ;-) I am joking of course but the politics do seem a sensitive. Has any direction for Rails 2.0 been stated other than removing components and pagination? Is something big already planned? > As for defining models in plugins - what do you feel is the main difficulty? Perhaps it has changed but when i was using Engines many months ago, I had to define the contents of the model in a module and then mix that module into the model. Sorry if that is worded so clunky but hopeful you know what I'm talking about. It isn't that it is really difficult it just doesn't seem as smooth or friendly as being able to define the model exactly how it would be defined in a plain vanilla Rails app. Thanks again, Peter -- JavaScript for Rails: http://forkjavascript.org _______________________________________________ engine-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-developers-rails-engines.org
