Yes. I think that while some people might have incremental benefit from autoloading lib/, it's not very hard to require files from it, and the benefits of having a spot to stick things where you need more precise control outweigh this tiny cost. I'm glad to see that, for you, doing what you needed to do was intuitive.
-- Yehuda On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Martin Gamsjaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Hey, > > I for one just had the feeling to put > > http://github.com/rails/rails/tree/master/activesupport/lib/active_support/core_ext/module/delegation.rb > into the lib directory, and my first thought was, well ok, let's > require it in Merb::BootLoader.before_app_loads. > > Merb::BootLoader.before_app_loads do > require Merb.root / "lib" / "delegation" > end > > I really think this is simple enough! *Everyone* should have seen the > init.rb file at least once and since the method has such a precise > name, it's really not that hard to guess its purpose! > > Also, I have to say that I don't really like all kinds of automagic! > Why not make it explicit that you want to load certain files before > the app loads ,and some after that? It's good documentation at least! > and really not that hard. If some automagic happens, I need to be > aware about what kinds of that magic are happening! But what if I'm > not interested in magic :)? Also, what if I want to turn off / change > the magic? Say I temporarily *don't* want some file under lib required > for testing whatever? I would need to know merb api to alter that > behavior I guess!?! > > Without the magic, I would just state exactly what I want to do, like > I would in any other ruby program. The only thing that is nice to know > is that Merb.root exists (coming from rails myself I knew Rails.root, > tried Merb.root and it worked :-) It really would'nt be hard without > Merb.root either. I don't need to be aware about the way merb preloads > things, I don't need to know that merb has a dependency method, I can > simply rely on plain old ruby. Also, that way, I'm free to comment the > require statement for whatever reason. > > I guess I made my opinion clear. Don't change anything, and rely on > people's ability to look at init.rb and "guess" the meaning of the > wonderfully named Merb::BootLoader.before_app_loads method. Maybe > explicitly mention somewhere how to require files under lib, although > it would look embarassingly simple :) > > cheers > snusnu > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Julian Leviston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I reckon put the option in config. > > > > I reckon if they're using the "big daddy" version of merb, (ie the > > full stack one, I can't remember what you call it), then autoloading > > should be on, otherwise off. > > > > Possible? > > > > Julian. > > > > On 17/11/2008, at 5:34 AM, Michael Klishin wrote: > > > >> > >> I wonder what end users think about autoloading from lib directory in > >> the application. > >> > >> There are 2 opposite ideas on how it may work: > >> > >> 1. Lib is loaded before app. We have a patch for this but not sure if > >> it should be merged. > >> 2. lib is not loaded automatically, people can use > >> before_/after_app_loads to do exactly what they want. > >> > >> Some seem to prefer #2 though AFAIR Rails, for instance, does > >> autoloading from lib and thus some people may expect it. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> -- > >> MK > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Yehuda Katz Developer | Engine Yard (ph) 718.877.1325 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" 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/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
