I have tried to integrate a couple of things with refinery and in my opinion it probably won't work.
Not only will you have problems with the user model and permissions but you are likely to have routing conflicts too. Maybe when rails 3.1 comes around and delivers what it promises (mountable apps and real engines) you could combine the two. Even then you'd have to try and co-ordinate the user models in the database. This is one area where the rails community fell off the track in my opinion. There should have been an official user/group/permission scheme as a part of rails so we don't have dozens of projects trying to provide something so essential and simple. At a minimum rails should have dictated an interface like PAM and a set of mandatory routes and left the implementation to others. Rails should have also adopted the desert gem or at least embraced the concepts behind it. Another opportunity lost. Rails 3.0 was a mess as far as engines were concerned so the refinery team had to code all kinds of workaround and fixes around rails in order to implement their content scheme. They will most likely have to rewrite it from the ground up in order to move to rails 3.1. CE did the smart thing and bypassed 3.0 completely. In the mean time you have rack. You'd have to use the same database and take care with your user models but you might be able to pull it off. Well this turned out to be a bit a rant but It does bother me that so much effort goes into the user/group/permission in the rails world. Every day there is something new and we all jump on it like it was candy thrown from the parade float. Why can't this community agree on a standard user model? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommunityEngine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/communityengine?hl=en.
