On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Adam <amilli...@pivotallabs.com> wrote: > More importantly, the added complexity created by importing all of the > collection logic and interface into a non-collection association class > just adds to rigidity and potential for odd bugs in the future.
Let's do this refactoring when that actually happens. > What concerns me most about this is that resistance to cleaning up > code likely implies a lack of confidence in the test suite. > Considering how core associations are to Rails, and the not > insignificant amount of cruft in that code, there should be tests on > associations like fat kids on an ice cream truck. What are you > concerned the changes will break, given that all the tests pass? There is no lack of confidence. But I'm not very much in favour of refactoring without any performance gains or any obscure bug fixes. Refactoring like these makes almost all the relevant patches in LH stale and screws up the history. I just don't think the patch in question here is worth that. -- Cheers! - 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 rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
