Hmm, I guess part of Hobo could also be refactored to be more loosely coupled to hobo "core" modules. Fx parts of DRYML don't have to depend on hobo being installed I guess. Well, Rails is in serious need of a really powerful taglib solution anyhow, one of the main attractions of sth. like Grails in comparison. The default HTML with erb is just too much like the olden days with ASP/JSP/PHP IMO.
I really love the Hobofields part- seems a bit like DataMapper (Merb) and the similar approach in Grails. I am sure the Public API of Rails 3 will make it much easier for extension developers in the future. It is a must! There is also Sinatra et. al. out there... I think that in the end it might just result in a cleaner Hobo with both less internal couplins and less tightly coupled to Rails too... Yeah, I think the internals should be documented to some degree on the wiki and parts extracted into the book and other places where the relevant parts make sense ;) I would be glad to assist if I can :) -Kris On Sep 23, 11:52 pm, Matt Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Kristian wrote: > > > > >http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7478/1.html > >http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7484/1.html > >http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7489/1.html > >http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7492/ > > > Just some nice things in Rails 3.0 that might be useful in a hobo > > context ;) > > Anyone using Hobo with Rails 3.0 out there? How do they currently fit? > > I doubt Hobo will work at all with Rails 3.0 - we've hooked much too > tightly into ActionPack and friends to withstand the massive > refactoring that's taken place. Actually, I think Hobo will likely be > a solid proof-of-concept for the "public API" stuff wycats is so crazy > about; if we can get Hobo running on Rails 3 without monkey-patching > everything to bits, that will show the public API actually works. > > I floated the idea of a Hobofields-like solution being included in > ActiveRecord for 3.0, but it never got much traction on rails-core. It > certainly would be nice, as several of the competing ORM setups have a > similar (although not as powerful, IMHO) syntax. > > BTW, the DRYML internals stuff is interesting, but would it make more > sense on the wiki? Unless I'm mistaken, anybody can edit the one on > Github. Tom, thoughts? > > --Matt Jones --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hobousers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
