On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:19, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:06:09AM +0100, Isak Andersson wrote:
>> I think Alternative 2 makes the most sense. Then you can have multiple apps
>> that don't share the public folder. Plus, you put almost everything in the
>> app folder anyway
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:14, Magnus Holm wrote:
> I think the ability to load multiple Camping apps at once makes things
> a lot more difficult (e.g. how to deal with static files).
>
> Does anyone actually use this feature?
>
> // Magnus Holm
Just realized that we have a slight problem:
How t
I have never used that feature either.
And for my apps I prefer to keep things compartimentalized / isolated
anyway.
On 12/20/2011 6:09 AM, David Susco wrote:
I've never found myself working on multiple apps at once in a dev environment.
Dave
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Magnus Holm wro
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 16:36, David Susco wrote:
> Magnus, would that still support the dynamic reloading of the app file
> that the camping server does now?
>
> Dave
Yes. It will watch both apps.
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.or
Magnus, would that still support the dynamic reloading of the app file
that the camping server does now?
Dave
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 15:14, Isak Andersson wrote:
>> Den 2011-12-20 14:09:02 skrev David Susco :
>>
>>
>>> I've never found myse
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 15:14, Isak Andersson wrote:
> Den 2011-12-20 14:09:02 skrev David Susco :
>
>
>> I've never found myself working on multiple apps at once in a dev
>> environment.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> I haven't either, but I can definitely see myself using it sometime.
The new Camping Server
Den 2011-12-20 14:09:02 skrev David Susco :
I've never found myself working on multiple apps at once in a dev
environment.
Dave
I haven't either, but I can definitely see myself using it sometime.
--
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bitpuffin/
Blog: http://bitpuffin.tumblr.com/
Github: http://g
Okay, some new rules for topic branches in camping/camping:
- You are free to create topic branches, however:
- Anyone are free to commit to them.
- After they have been merged/abandoned anyone are free to delete them.
If you want to have full ownership and control over your topic
branches, pleas
I've never found myself working on multiple apps at once in a dev environment.
Dave
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:
> I think the ability to load multiple Camping apps at once makes things
> a lot more difficult (e.g. how to deal with static files).
>
> Does anyone actually u
Not sure what other people are doing but I already have my apps in
separate folders. Each app has:
app/
app/app.rb
app/app/
app/config/
app/public/
app/lib/
app/db/
app/log/
When I launch a new one I just add it to the apache conf and restart.
Dave
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Jenna Fox wr
I vote number 2 - it keeps apps separated, so you can pop a whole bunch in a
folder and call it a day - Having one big shared public folder is messy and
breaks that model of separation entirely. If people like Isak have existing
arrangements in place, there aught to be some configurable option t
Den 2011-12-20 11:19:40 skrev Paul van Tilburg :
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:06:09AM +0100, Isak Andersson wrote:
I think Alternative 2 makes the most sense. Then you can have multiple
apps
that don't share the public folder. Plus, you put almost everything in
the
app folder anyways so there
I think the ability to load multiple Camping apps at once makes things
a lot more difficult (e.g. how to deal with static files).
Does anyone actually use this feature?
// Magnus Holm
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyf
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:06:09AM +0100, Isak Andersson wrote:
> I think Alternative 2 makes the most sense. Then you can have multiple apps
> that don't share the public folder. Plus, you put almost everything in the
> app folder anyways so there shouldn't be a difference now either.
>
> >Altern
Den 2011-12-20 00:24:51 skrev Philippe Monnet :
Plus people familiar with - or switching from ;-) - Rails and other
frameworks would also feel at home.
And switching from Camping to others :) But why would you want to!
--
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bitpuffin/
Blog: http://bitpuffin.tumblr.com
Bytes are precious
Nothing stops us from implementing it as an extension (or whatever it
should be called) though :-)
Allright, let's do that when 2.2 is out then :)
--
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bitpuffin/
Blog: http://bitpuffin.tumblr.com/
Github: http://github.com/milkshakepanda/
__
I think Alternative 2 makes the most sense. Then you can have multiple apps
that don't share the public folder. Plus, you put almost everything in the
app folder anyways so there shouldn't be a difference now either.
Alternative 2:
app.rb
app/public
app/public/style.css # example
--
Twi
The trouble is that a markaby-type thing is just a short ruby script - maybe
two or three files, but really not much of anything. ActiveRecord is a
complicated set of software for interacting with many different kinds of
databases, some not even SQL based, which includes or depends on native cod
I think it's just as likely that people would want to use a data modelling
alternative to ActiveRecord as it is that they'd want to use a templating
language of their choice, so you're already kinda past the point of keeping
out dependencies. Speaking as someone who tried Camping after very little
Oh yeah, totes BYOORM
—
Jenna Fox
On Tuesday, 20 December 2011 at 7:38 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 23:24, Jenna Fox (mailto:a...@creativepony.com)> wrote:
> > I'd like markaby to be a hard dependancy - it's the default, if it isn't
> > installed beginners get terribly c
Do we want a brand new markaby-like thing to be the grand evolution of Why and
Tim's initial creation, or do we want to stand out and say "Hey world, we've
made something like Markaby, but heaps better", in the way the Nokogiri clan
have.
I've changed my mind. I think it should have a new name.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 23:24, Jenna Fox wrote:
> I'd like markaby to be a hard dependancy - it's the default, if it isn't
> installed beginners get terribly confused, and installing one more gem
> really isn't going to cause problems for people - computers have so much
> free space these days. If
2011/12/19 Bartosz Dziewoński :
> 2011/12/19 Magnus Holm :
>> The real question here is: Should it be a part of camping/mab.rb or
>> the Mab-gem? I'm definitely for adding many features (indentation,
>> attribute-validation, flow-validation), but not in Camping. The
>> Camping implementation should
23 matches
Mail list logo
