On 11/14/06, Hendy Irawan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/14/06, Wybo Wiersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What happened ? > > > > To this list ? To engines ?
Unless I missed the memo, nothing's happened to either this list, or to the engines plugin - they're both still here, still working, right? :-) The website was re-worked because it suffered heavily from wiki spam, to the point where it was essentially un-usable as a source of documentation. The reason the focus was taken off the login/user engines is because I felt that it was important to distinguish between a) using the engines plugin as a tool for more powerful reuse in your own development and b) providing a set of drop in components. The former is the more correct, and the latter what inspires all the negative attention that engines recieve. This does not in any way prohibit other people from speaking about or promoting any of those specific engines; just that I no longer have the time or energy to fight the uphill struggle against thought-followers who believe that engines are *just* the login/user engines, are high level components, are evil, and so on. Regarding login or user engines, at the moment, I'm not very happy with them because they represent old code (much of which I didn't even write) which isn't as nice to use as I might like. Others are already on the case here (search this list for 'hark', for instance, and of course there is ActiveRBAC). I'd much prefer it if I personally could focus on the development of the engines plugin, and leave the actual engine implementations to others in the community. What do you think? Also, with the upcoming release of Rails 1.2, the distinction between engines and plugins will hopefully basically disappear. Now that I have an 'official' mechanism to control the order that plugins are loaded, there's no need for Engines.start, and all the features that the engines plugin provides can be made available to any plugin that needs them. This might result an erosion of meaning for the word 'engine' as applied to any particular chunk of shareable code - we'd just have plugins that make use of engine-plugin features. The 'pluginaweek' guys have the right idea - to an extent at least. I still feel that every 'feature' that the engines plugin provides makes sense as a coherent, single package, and they got a few things quite wrong in their recent criticism - see my reply on rails-engines.org if you're interested. As for activity on the lists, well - that's up to you guys! - James -- * J * ~ _______________________________________________ engine-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-users-rails-engines.org
