Here's the problem: What if you have stuff in lib/ that depends on stuff in your models. I think this needs to be something that is decided on a case-by-case basis. We can apply the patch, but I suspect it will have potentially back-compat breaking implications. What I really want is unshift_path, which would move the path to the front of the list. Again, does this satisfy people's concerns?
Is the issue with unshift_path confusion? We can make it clear! -- Yehuda On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Erik Lagercrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > I definitely agree with the decision not to enable magical autoloading > of lib, but I don't really understand how that turned into a decision > not to apply the patch in #1010. It seems reasonable to me that if lib > is added to the load paths at all (which it is), then that should be > done before adding the app directories, regardless of whether the > contents of either are autoloaded or not. > > It's not a very big issue because I can easily customize the load > paths by adding my own config/framework.rb file, but it would be nice > to have a better default order. The patch doesn't change anything but > the order, does it? Would there be any downsides to applying it? > > Erik > > On 17 Nov, 07:54, "Michael Klishin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > 2008/11/17 Matt Aimonetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Do I understand that we have an agreement and lib code shouldn't be > auto > > > loaded? > > > > Looks like like the agreement is to keep things the way they are and > > add some documentation. > > -- > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
