Sure, but say that you want to have lots and lots of controllers, I don't think anyone wants to sit there and write a module for each one to be honest.
And with that way of thinking we shouldn't even be able to set :views. We would have to write a module App::Views for every view. set :views is magic, but it is not a bad kind of magic. This is just basic stuff to make a web app pleasant to develop. And I know set :views is partially so we can use any markup engine we want. But not being able to do the same for all the others is silly in my humble opinion. Compared to things found in rails it doesn't even come close to magic where you have no clue of what's going on or how it works. It's not like you have to take it even if you don't want it either. You have to set it yourself, and that eliminates the feeling of magic for me. > The regular way of doing this with requires is simply that your > 'controller' files look like this: > > module MyApp::Controllers > class PonyX > def get id > .. logic to look up pony with id .. > end > end > end > > This can even be generalized further I expect, to > > class MyApp::Controllers::PonyX > ⦠> end > > This way you totally avoid weird evaling hacks, and are just writing plain > old straight forward ruby code with no magic (as is the Camping way). It > works because camping allows you to reopen modules and classes again and > again by defining them several times, adding new classes or adding new > methods to existing classes. > > > â > Jenna Fox > > > On Monday, 19 December 2011 at 8:56 AM, icepa...@lavabit.com wrote: > >> What I am doing now is basically the same as requiring. If I do require >> with all the files, they don't become a part of the controllers module. >> >> The problem is that having to require (or in my case 'add') ever >> controller is *not* a very good way to work. It would be much better to >> be >> able to just do: >> >> set :controllers, *path to controllers* >> >> Because in the long run, that saves you time, and a bunch of boring and >> tedious work. >> >> The problem isn't that the solution I currently have doesn't work, this >> is >> just a suggestion to make Camping so much better. >> >> > I don't think I understand the problem - can't you just `require` all >> > the files with controllers? >> > >> > -- Matma Rex >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Camping-list mailing list >> > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) >> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> > Find aldi jobs Online Get Started Now. >> > http://click.lavabit.com/db5fe7a9kai9wirqj77kjjiskdphxcqqrdiye5hkpuyeyn1bah8y/ >> > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Camping-list mailing list >> Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Learn How To Get Your Certification & Training As A Radiology Technician. > http://click.lavabit.com/5rmgod5iesh68xxeayxmjfqgo5fc3dqbm7m94shsxktoioehr3cb/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > _______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
