Thank you for your explanations, José.
But don't you think that engines should be created by default by the
"rails plugin new" command as I expect them to be more commonly used
than railties or plugins?
This is similar to Rails Metal. You can get a lighter controller using
lower-level classes instead of ActionController::Base for faster
responses but you won't find generators for Rails Metal controllers.
I'm just talking about defaults here. Maybe engines should be created by
default and disabled with --skip-engine in Rails 4. Or maybe Rails 4
could add a new "engine" command?
Em 05-06-2012 17:11, José Valim escreveu:
> The point I'm trying to make is that there is no need for exposing
so much details to extension developers.
There is. Engine has a longer initialization process, more objects
involved, etc. Why would you submit your app to a longer
initialization process when there is no need to?
Railties provides all the tools you could use to customize a Rails
application.
An Engine is a Railtie with all the capabilities you would have in an
Application (app, assets, routes, migrations, etc).
All these things are plugins. A gem is how you package a plugin.
> But the explanation above didn't talked about what a Railtie really
is. What would it be useful for?
Read the Railtie docs or search for examples on github.com, there are
plenty.
> By the way I don't get why 's.add_development_dependency "sqlite3"'
is added to gemspec when -O is specified.
It is a bug. Patches are welcome.
--
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.
