> 1. The same reason that rails core named their classes > ActiveRecord::Base, not ActiveRecordBase, or > ActonController::Caching::Actions, not ActionControllerCachingActions, > etc., is its poor style/design/foresight to use > CustomerNotesController instead of Customers::NotesController. We > should be leveraging the ruby language, not shaping ruby to fit > rails. What happens if we have to refactor? In addition, having to > configure the routes by hand to use the correct controller name is not > the rails-way. >
Reason why it's AR::Base and not ActiveRecordBase is because AR is a module that has lot more stuff than just the Base class. Customers::NotesControlle is poor to use instead of NotesController < CommonController. Or you can just do something like class NotesController < AC include CustomerBehavior end Please note that you can have any directory structure you want, keeping sane controller names. Also, you can have any url you need as well. > 2. A lot of the same reasons I wrote in #1. What about an enterprise- > level web application with 80 models. If we prefix them with another > name anyways, why not make a namespace out of it? > My current app has like 40 models so far. 40 more would fit in just perfect. > 3. So for every module I write, I should have an entry in my > environment listing each of them so it can load the paths properly? > Thats rhetorical. > No. Just the directory. root/models/customer/ Thanks, Pratik -- http://m.onkey.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
