I agree as well. It's only ONE problem, but it's a big one. Distribution, upgrades, and even just seeing what files came from where. Generators don't solve it, and plugins just seem wrong. The closest thing would be Components, but of course they have their own issues.
The other problems may or may not be more significant. Granted, you can't rip out the average controller from an arbitrary app and re-use it, but there's no reason you can't have loosely coupled "apps" running under the same memory footprint sharing nothing more than a common login. I started to write more on the subject and it turned into a whole article: http://darwinweb.net/article/Modular_Development_On_Rails What do you think? On 6/16/07, Tyler McMullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is this even true? > > I'd submit that, yes, it is. The best way that I've found of sharing entire > "slices" of an application, is simply pluginize the whole thing. Which is > rather bothersome. But, in that case, I simply have an svn:external (or in > some cases just a symlink) pointing to the plugin. To do that without > pluginizing, using the current directory structure, is impractical. > > That being said though, I don't think thats enough reason to justify such a > change. Others have already mentioned the appropriate reasons as to why its > not. > > Tyler > > > On 6/15/07, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I've written an article suggesting some radical changes to the Rails > > > directory structure for Rails 2.0 and am curious to know the core > > > team's thoughts about it: > > > > > > > http://wiseheartdesign.com/2007/6/15/better-modularization-for-rails-2-0/ > > > > Leaving aside the asthetic issues, and the high cost to tooling and > > books of changing the application layout, I'm curious about the whole > > rationale. > > > > "One of the primary hinderances of the present Rails architecture to > > modularization is the directory structure." > > > > Is this even true? We have configurable load paths, controller > > paths, and view paths. I simply can't see how the directory structure > > is even on the list of the top ten problems to 'modularization' of a > > rails application. > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Koz > > > > > > > > > -- Gabe da Silveira http://darwinweb.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
