Yeah, I had to move the internal controller to the bottom, so it would include Models too. I've never liked the route maker, and if we can do almost the same without (and 135 bytes) it I would be happy.
Do you have any plans on making Equipment Camping 2.0 ready? Is there much to do? Perhaps you could push it to GitHub? On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:17 PM, zimbatm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, why not. I'd much prefer to at least allow a "class Name < R; > end" construct > > Longer answer : > > The constants problem can also be avoided by checking it's type. I > never encountered that problem because that Controllers module is > exactly there to separate the code logic. Other constants must go one > level higher. Otherwise, we could scrap the modules all together an > build our apps on a 1 module level. > > The real problem, I believe, is the late module inclusion. It makes it > harder to build plugins and such. While developing the "Equipment" > library, I had a weird inclusion mechanism I wish I didn't had to do. > Ruby also has some quirks regarding module inclusion into other > modules and late method definition in reopened parent module. So while > your patch might fix the most cases, I believe there is more work to > be done here. Anyways, keep up the good work. > > Cheers, > zimbatm > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > -- Magnus Holm _______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
