"...aren't we supposed to be acolytes of Agile, and iterative improvements?" Yes. And I didn't mean to imply that a total refactoring of associations was an absolute condition of "success" or that a "just refactorings" effort does not have merit.
Roughly, I'm in complete agreement with Adam's original post: Refactoring the associations code is needed, and the most needy areas are the most fundamental (inheritance hierarchy, module-versus- subclass composition, namespaces, etc.).. But I raise the flag that this whole area is due for a major structural refactoring, not just HOT/HMT. And, despite the theory, that should have implications for anybody undertaking a refactoring of HOT/HMT. -Chris On Apr 23, 1:29 pm, Tim Connor <timocra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, aren't we supposed to be acolytes of Agile, and iterative > improvements? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
