On 24 March 2010 09:01, Martin Gamsjaeger <[email protected]> wrote: > OK > > So I probably was a bit too direct! Of course we are happy to discuss > the implications of this move with the public! I didn't want my latest > reply to sound like we don't care, it's been decided, at all! I still > think that describing actual problems takes us further than simply > saying "DM is now tied to rails" tho, which simply isn't true. It > depends on part of the rails stack, but on a part that fortunately now > is separate enough from rails, to be usable for other projects too. I > think of active_support as kind of an "extended stdlib" and I think we > should do our best to help the active_support team make it behave even > more so. That can only be done by using it in different projects (like > we do in dm now) and help them eliminate the last flaws that "prevent" > it from being really completely independent from rails. > > That said, PLEASE let us know of all the concerns you have and we will > happily discuss them!
I realize Rails is trying to be compatible with DM, but I do have concerns that active_support will be developed to target rails/active_record and DM may be left on it's own to make sure it's compatible with any active_support changes. At least with extlib there was a sense of control as a dependency. The way I see it, maybe extlib should be the primary dependency, and active_support should be the optional, not the other way around. What are the main things that active_support buys DM? -- Matt King [email protected] -- 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.
