Either way, though it should be consistent whichever method.
On Sep 10, 2:22 pm, Tom Locke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe the mistake was to introduce the symbolic name for each type. If
> you just use the class name, the normal dependency loading kicks in.
>
> ?
>
> Tom
>
> On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:15, kevinpfromnm wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would say either of the first two. The last might be problematic or
> > confusing for people who use namespaced models.
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:36 pm, Matt Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The discussion about loading rich types reminded me that I'd wanted
> >> to
> >> get some kind of autoloading working for a while - after all, nearly
> >> everything *else* in Rails handles loading behind the scenes.
>
> >> With some naming conventions, it should be possible to do autoloading
> >> on rich types - but the convention needs to be established. In
> >> particular, where should the files live? I've been using RAILS_ROOT/
> >> lib/types for my rich types, loaded via an initializer, but that's
> >> not
> >> necessarily the right way. Here's some ideas:
>
> >> - in most cases, it seems logical to keep the filename matching the
> >> underscored type name; this fits with Rails conventions. So a field
> >> declared as 'phone :phone_number' would look for phone_number.rb
> >> someplace. Possiblities:
>
> >> - put types in lib/types
> >> - put types in app/rich_types
> >> - put types in app/models/rich_types
>
> >> or maybe another place? I think its important to get this working
> >> before 1.0, as type loading has historically been a weak point.
>
> >> --Matt Jones
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo
Users" 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/hobousers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
