On Wednesday 20 May 2009, RSL wrote: > I agree that Rails has made many changes to it's public API and how > we could all benefit from more stability [as well as the irony that > in order to get this fabled stable API, we're going to break all of > the previous one].
I'm not sure you've understood what I wrote. Do you realize that there is a difference between interfaces targetted at application developers as opposed to interfaces targetted at framework extension programmers? > It's the language of all this that bugs me and I > feel needs to change in order to communicate accurately and honestly > the situation instead of relying on the old responses and > accusations. Were this not being used in the public forum by > "activists", I wouldn't even raise the question. As far as language is concerned, my immediate impression was that you're attacking(!) this issue in a rather unfortunate way. Too much aggression, too little understanding. If you feel piqued by my wording, you'll appreciate what I mean. Michael > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Michael Schuerig <mich...@schuerig.de>wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 May 2009, RSL wrote: > > > Merb was always putting out this line about how Rails had no > > > public API. I found it laughable at first because > > > http://api.rubyonrails.org/ seemed to obviously refute this. > > > However, recently I've noticed this same line still being trotted > > > about, by "Rails" "activists" no less. Can someone give me an > > > honest answer why this what seems to me to be a baldface lie is > > > being promoted from within our own ranks now? > > > > Hold your horses. Rails having no public API is a mis-statement of > > a very real shortcoming. As you point out, a public Application PI > > is there indeed. What's missing is a defined interface for people > > extending or otherwise hacking Rails. > > > > The usual approach is just to do what currently works. > > Consequently, code like that is bound to break on updates to the > > Rails code base. A defined interface could future-proof such code. > > > > It's unfortunate that the term API is used in this context as > > that's not what the problem is about. An SPI (Service PI) it is > > neither. I have no suggestion for a better term. -- Michael Schuerig mailto:mich...@schuerig.de http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
