On Jul 2, 1:09 pm, Dirkjan Bussink <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I strongly oppose a solution that doesn't allow the end user to > choose the internationalisation library. Personally I don't want to be > forced by dm-validations to use Rails i18n (I really don't like the > API myself).
Aside from my dislike of forcing a single i18n library on everyone, is that if you ask any two developers what they need/want in one, you'll get different and often conflicting answers. There's not really any agreed upon approach to resolving this, which means to me there's still room for innovation. > Agree on the fact that we shouldn't clutter dm-core with this stuff. I agree on this too. I don't want i18n part of dm-core. For one, there's no need, there's nothing in dm-core that needs to be internationalized. Secondly the only library that needs i18n support that I can think of is dm-validations. We should be focusing on that library, and how we can alter it's API and provide hooks so it works with i18n libs without tightly coupling itself to any of them. I know that's easier said than done, but I think that's where we should focus our efforts. -- Dan (dkubb) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" 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/datamapper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
