On Sunday 26 August 2012, Tim Olsen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schuerig <
>
> michael.li...@schuerig.de> wrote:
> > I think our cases are different. I'm not using the Rails streaming
> > support at all. Instead, I'm setting the necess
On Saturday 25 August 2012, Tim Olsen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Michael Schuerig
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Is there a problem with chunking and Tomcat? jruby-rack doesn't
> > support it directly, but it doesn't prohibit it either. It appear
response_body whose #each yields properly formatted chunks and
a terminating empty chunk. I've just started to use this to pass through
(already chunked) responses from another services.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You received
ds renaming methods with
alias_method_chain or similar.
Michael
--
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, s
27;
>
> moduleMyEngine
> class Engine < ::Rails::Engine
> end
> end
Now that you've said it, it seems incredibly obvious.
Thanks!
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You received this message becau
d to declare all the transitive engine dependencies. I'd rather
not do that.
I'm wondering, did I miss some nice declarative way to say that an
engine depends on other engines? Or is this a limitation in the current
implementation?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schu
On Monday 11 June 2012, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
> Em 11-06-2012 15:10, Michael Schuerig escreveu:
> > ...
> > In order to get those engines loaded at the right time, I need to
> > add explicit requires in test/dummy/config/application.rb, just
> > below the g
On Monday 11 June 2012, Jeremy Walker wrote:
> On 11 June 2012 19:10, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > A recent discussion here has brought konacha, an engine for testing
> > JavaScript code, to my attention. In the meantime, I have extracted
> > common code from several applic
it needs to set different additional asset paths, then when in
an app environment), but it would be a good start.
Michael
--
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
assess, and apply
the advice in the available books on Ruby and Rails good practices. If
an upgrade to a newer Rails version seems daunting, it may well be
because it exposes problems with your codebase that are quite
independent of Rails itself.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:m
reak code like
Klass.order_by_foo.find_by_bar(...)
I'd suggest that dynamic finders raise an exception when they are passed
nil, but I'm pretty sure that this would break existing code, too.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You re
On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Evgeniy Dolzhenko wrote:
> >> Just as you can't have Image or Javascript resource.
>
> You're *meant* to be abl
n the process leading up to it. I'm pretty
sure that there are lots of existing apps that have Asset models.
Upgrading these apps has become more complicated due to the change.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You received this messa
,
:javascripts_dir, :stylesheets_dir
end
end
end
I'm sure the change was well-intentioned, but it surreptitiously grabs a
rather common name and reserving it for the framework. In effect, this
change precludes having an asset resource. I think this is bad.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto
plicit response for the format.
Did I miss how to do this with the existing responder code? Are there
serious reasons why it should not be done anyway?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You received this message because you are subsc
On Thursday 26 August 2010, Chris Hanks wrote:
> You can still use Rails.application.
Yes, you're right. Forget what I wrote, I misdiagnosed the problem.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You received this message because
here is no longer a generic way to access the
application's configuration? The engine I mentioned above contains code
shared among several applications and I need a way to read and write
configuration information without knowing the exact class of the
application.
Michael
--
Michael Schue
.parseJSON = function(data) {
if (/^\s*$/.test(data)) {
return null;
} else {
parseJSON_orig(data);
}
}
Is there any better way to get things working? Should jquery-ujs take
care of this problem?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig
hink it would be useful to have a way to force the
rendered format. However, I don't yet understand the architecture well
enough to be entirely sure that this is a good idea.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--
You received this mess
format could be an option to #render.
Michael
--
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 rubyonrai
me #responds_to?
is dangerously close to #respond_to?, #responds_to_format? may be safer,
if less pretty. Also, it might be a good idea for
#collect_mimes_from_class_level to memoize its result.
Is there any reason against this? A better way?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> I've added a ticket for a rather experimental patch that modularizes
> how the information displayed by /rails/info/properties and
> script/about are collected
>
> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-
rails/
On Thursday 21 May 2009, James Adam wrote:
> On May 20, 8:30 pm, Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 17:08, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > > > The problem is that the current Initializer instance isn't
> > > > saved anywhere.
> > > &
On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 17:08, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > > The problem is that the current Initializer instance isn't saved
> > > anywhere.
> > >
> > > If you change your environment.rb like this:
7;m thinking of adding functionality for
introspecting and changing parameters.
I'm looking forward to technical comments and whether you consider this
generally worthwhile or not.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www
ate 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
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2
On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > Is there a way to find out which (gem) plugins are loaded without
> > repeating work the initializer has already done?
>
> No, but it's been proposed:
> ht
. 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
--
Michael Schue
On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:32, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > Is there a way to find out which (gem) plugins are loaded without
> > repeating work the initializer has already done?
>
> The problem is that the current Initi
Is there a way to find out which (gem) plugins are loaded without
repeating work the initializer has already done?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
On Thursday 14 May 2009, Josh Susser wrote:
> On May 13, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
[...]
> > ARec needs to take a step back from concrete SQL strings, toward
> > abstract models of the various SQL statements. This (huge) step
> > would allow for better modula
On Thursday 14 May 2009, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
> > ARec needs to take a step back from concrete SQL strings, toward
> > abstract models of the various SQL statements. This (huge) step
> > would allow for better modula
models of the various SQL statements. This (huge) step would
allow for better modularity, customizability, and easier expression of
programmer intention. I have no idea how to introduce a change such as
this as it would surely void backward compatibility. Sigh, only
dreaming.
Michael
--
Michae
ention are not carried through to the schema.rb
dump and therefore are not used in tests or any other databases
constructed from the schema.rb
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
associations
http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/enforce_schema_rules
http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/validation_reflection
http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/client_side_validation
(the last one for inspiration only)
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.sc
hen I understood even less about this then I do now.
Michael
--
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"
On Saturday 18 April 2009, pedz wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:10 pm, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> > My general idea is to support only MySQL and PostgreSQL in the
> > first iteration in case the other DBMS require special. Also, as
> > there may be reservations about this feature
like to support constraints on polymorphic associations
where possible.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:mich...@schuerig.de
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &qu
t waste my time.
Michael
--
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
On Sunday 05 April 2009, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> On Saturday 04 April 2009, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Michael Schuerig
> >
>
> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > Are there any general concerns against adding this functionality?
> &g
On Saturday 04 April 2009, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Michael Schuerig
wrote:
[...]
> > Are there any general concerns against adding this functionality?
> > Otherwise, I'll start work on a patch.
>
> I'd love this, it's on
uniqueness violations
specially by raising RecordNotUnique, subclassed from StatementInvalid,
with a suitable hint as to which constraint has been violated.
Are there any general concerns against adding this functionality?
Otherwise, I'll start work on a patch.
Michael
--
Michael Sch
> On 11/05/2008, at 8:31 AM, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > At this time I don't see much for core to do. Possibly add a stern
> > warning to the docs, what the sanitize does and doesn't do.
On Sunday 11 May 2008, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> Th
d a stern
warning to the docs, what the sanitize does and doesn't do.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &qu
eve this with the
existing sanitizers out of the box. I could do some post-processing, of
course, but that this is necessary detracts mightily from the
usefulness of the sanitizers. As they are, they don't fit the purpose
of deriving sane (well-formed) HTML from arbitrary input. I may be
misun
n't see how to use the sanitizers as they currently are.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: C
ckery', so if something does break you'll kinda be
> on your own. Do let us know though ;)
That's about what I thought :-| I think it should be stated in the docs
one way or another, however, I don't yet know which way it is.
Michael
--
Michael
to database object identity.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
sed neither lighthouse nor git before, I hope I didn't blow
anything.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rub
t;Something is wrong")
wherever it applies with level defaulting to :errors, i.e.
level = options[:level] ?
options[:level].to_s.pluralize.to_sym :
:errors
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~--
hooks to add them myself in an app or
plugin.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Sven Fuchs wrote:
> Did that answer your question?
Yes, thanks.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
.
>
> Right now one has to jump through hoops to do that (and, above all,
> know which ones and how).
Would you mind to elaborate? I don't understand what you mean, but I'm
curious.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-
I'm looking forward to comments on
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10512
The point of the patch is to enable clean, application-specific
configuration for plugins that need it. No more MY_PLUGIN_SOME_CONFIG
in environment.rb.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
independently check this behavior, to confirm
that the current implementation without subselect does not hurt
performance.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message b
ch in turn could be supplied by the respective
adapters.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core&
higher layer uses. If indeed no
more flexibility is needed, then it would be a lot simpler to mix-in
the helper methods into ActiveRecord::Base and Array and be done with
it. OTOH, if there is a need to potentially have different
implementations of helper methods, then the existing flexibility could
(Statically scoping mixins would be useful in its own right to keep
independent extensions of core or rails classes from treading on each
others feet.)
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Yo
sponding revision numbers. This approach doesn't
guarantee that there can be no conflicts when branches are merged, but
I think this can't be guaranteed anyway.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~-
27;t jump from scepticism to condemnation.
Nonetheless, I think the most important task for people sporting this
approach is to present a convincing case of how it improves on the
current state. How about a couple of examples that demonstrate the
beauty of doing things your way?
Michael
[*] h
ther likely, consider
using pessimistic locking. It's not yet available in a released version
of Rails/ActiveRecord, but will apparently be in 1.2.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
What do you think?
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
