On Jun 17, 3:00 am, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remove 'model' from that list, and you'd be awfully close to having my vote.
> The views, helpers, and controller do all tend to relate quite closely
> together. Models, though, often permeate between various controllers.
>
+1 tha
I agree with David. I think that the Rails development team should now
develop more high-level reuse of the sub-set than changing all the
base Rails was created.
I am not saying that the "Django-style" is bad, I really like it. But
Rails-style is nice and cool to, so why change something that wor
I like the idea overall but I don't like throwing my views in with my
code. Perhaps keeping the views in another subfolder (within a
particular 'slice') would maintain the notion of separation of
concerns a little better. Otherwise I'm a fan of the idea.
-James
--~--~-~--~~-
> Given this reply, I'm not really sure what your position is at the
> moment. Given that we *all* agree that some forms of "code sharing"
> are best enabled outside of core, do you believe that there is value
> for some people in having this ability, and that it's worth
> considering the design o
On 6/17/07, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 6/17/07, Gabe da Silveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > So rather than say that Rails core should solve this problem. I would
> > > say Rails core should SUPPORT THE SO
On 6/18/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/17/07, Gabe da Silveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So rather than say that Rails core should solve this problem. I would
> > say Rails core should SUPPORT THE SOLVING OF this problem.
>
> Just like localization.
> +1 for solving
On 6/17/07, Gabe da Silveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> So rather than say that Rails core should solve this problem. I would
> say Rails core should SUPPORT THE SOLVING OF this problem.
Just like localization.
+1 for solving outside of Rails core.
--~--~-~--~~~---
First of all, I totally agree with this message. But I think you
should be careful about saying the problem should be solved in the
Rails core. The core team's distaste for high-level components, is
well-known and well-justified.
The crux of the matter is that the mechanics of modular code don'
I think this discussion is slightly off-center. It seems that most
people are criticizing John Long's solution rather than discussing the
problem he's trying to solve. The advantage to breaking out an
application by function rather than type is that you can then package
up an entire area of one
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:51:05PM -, John W. Long wrote:
> Again, what exactly is the point of organizing files by type? Our
So you know, absolutely, where a particular file will be. "I'm looking for
the Foo model, so that'll be in app/modules/foo.rb". It becomes a little
fuzzier as to whe
Although I don't see the practicality of grouping everything like you
intend, I could see grouping the controller helpers and views
together, but leaving the models separate:
app/
application/
application_controller.rb
application_helper.rb
views/
layout.rhtml
accounts/
On Jun 16, 5:33 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't see what is to stop you from releasing a plugin which uses our
> current configuration options for controller model and view paths to
> supports this functionality. Before we'd seriously consider
> including this kind o
> My experience with building an extension system for Radiant tells me
> that it is. Radiant extensions provide an app directory with places
> for controllers, views, and models--just like Rails--and the whole
> thing seems extremely heavyweight.
The reality is that your use case is a tiny subset
There is a definite benefit to being able to look at all the models or
controllers for an application together, or all the controllers. You
might convince me that your idea is BETTER, but you won't convince me
that it is universally better, or that organization by type is somehow
redundant and ca
On Jun 16, 1:27 pm, Frederick Cheung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2007, at 16:51, John W. Long wrote:
> > Is that not 10 times cleaner and easier to navigate? Now I can `mate
> > app/comments` to work on a single controller and related views.
>
> Sure that's nice and easy to look at, but
On 16 Jun 2007, at 16:51, John W. Long wrote:
Perhaps the example laid out in my article is a bit extreme. I'd see
it as a win if we just moved to a directory per related controller,
model, and views:
[snipped example]
Is that not 10 times cleaner and easier to navigate? Now I can `mate
Because of "configurable load paths, controller paths, and view
paths", I believe that what John Long is proposing is already
possible. It would just take some ingenuity and configuration effort.
So I really don't see the sense in lobbying for *everyone* using Rails
to change over to that alternat
On Jun 15, 10:45 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is this even true? We have configurable load paths, controller
> paths, and view paths. I simply can't see how the directory structure
> is even on the list of the top ten problems to 'modularization' of a
> rails application
It is if that is your viewpoint. Fundamentally the object map is a
network, not a tree. So a directory hierarchy can only ever show one
viewpoint. And the current one is as good a compromise as any.
Perhaps a solution is a generator that can creates a different view
using symbolic links?
Either
I agree as well. It's only ONE problem, but it's a big one.
Distribution, upgrades, and even just seeing what files came from
where. Generators don't solve it, and plugins just seem wrong. The
closest thing would be Components, but of course they have their own
issues.
The other problems may o
> Is this even true?
I'd submit that, yes, it is. The best way that I've found of sharing entire
"slices" of an application, is simply pluginize the whole thing. Which is
rather bothersome. But, in that case, I simply have an svn:external (or in
some cases just a symlink) pointing to the plugin.
> I've written an article suggesting some radical changes to the Rails
> directory structure for Rails 2.0 and am curious to know the core
> team's thoughts about it:
>
> http://wiseheartdesign.com/2007/6/15/better-modularization-for-rails-2-0/
Leaving aside the asthetic issues, and the high cost
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 11:46:34PM -, John W. Long wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 6:29 pm, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for thinking about this John, but I don't see Rails adopting
> > something along those lines right now. We can definitely do more to
> > improve high-level reuse for the
On Jun 15, 6:29 pm, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for thinking about this John, but I don't see Rails adopting
> something along those lines right now. We can definitely do more to
> improve high-level reuse for the sub-set of users who need it, but it
> probably won't be setting the ton
+1
"_foo" == :-(
b
DHH wrote:
>> I've written an article suggesting some radical changes to the Rails
>> directory structure for Rails 2.0 and am curious to know the core
>> team's thoughts about it:
>
> Thanks for thinking about this John, but I don't see Rails adopting
> something along tho
I like the writeup, but I don't see it as a big enough benefit to
justify the pain of changing it. Both structures have their benefits.
If one was clearly superior then I say damn the pain and change it,
but in this case it seems more like an arbitrary choice. Rails chose
the MVC structure and D
On 6/15/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, John W. Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've written an article suggesting some radical changes to the Rails
> > directory structure for Rails 2.0 and am curious to know the core
> > team's thoughts about it:
>
> Nice arti
> I've written an article suggesting some radical changes to the Rails
> directory structure for Rails 2.0 and am curious to know the core
> team's thoughts about it:
Thanks for thinking about this John, but I don't see Rails adopting
something along those lines right now. We can definitely do mo
On 6/15/07, John W. Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I've written an article suggesting some radical changes to the Rails
> directory structure for Rails 2.0 and am curious to know the core
> team's thoughts about it:
Nice article, short and to the point.
While the benefits are certainly re
29 matches
Mail list logo
