I don't have a good idea of the pros and cons of turning Active Resource into a gem, but if that were to happen, it does seem like Active Resource might become more free to evolve quickly and independently of the rest of Rails. Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable could comment further.
Nick On May 12, 3:54 pm, Prem Sichanugrist <[email protected]> wrote: > [Disclaimer: I'm not a core team member] > > I think if you would, It'd be great if you'd fork it and maintain it. I don't > really see much effort to it either, and I don't know how to *patch* it since > I'm not using it regularly. > > I think I'd then try to convince the core team to remove it, and then suggest > people to use that gem instead. > > - Prem > > On 12 พ.ค. 2554, at 17:49, Nick Urban wrote: > > > > > > > > > There are a number of additional features I required for a current > > project. I was able to solve some of these by using "Reactive > > Resource" (https://github.com/justinweiss/reactive_resource) but many > > I had to implement as override of various sorts. It seems like a > > better solution would be to build some more flexibility into Active > > Resource itself. > > > I notice that Active Resource hasn't really changed since 3.0.0. Is > > anybody working on this right now? Is there a maintainer I should talk > > to regarding potential patches? > > > Thanks, > > > Nick > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. -- 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.
