On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 11:50 -0800, DAddYE wrote: > Hi guys, > > I want to propose a little refactoring of merb. > > Now at the first view Merb for new guys same to be a little > complicated and with a lot lot lot lot gems, I like so much gems, but > 20+ gems when I do a fresh install of merb is a little strange. >
Hmm, I have one (core). That runs a pretty complex rules engine. Not sure why you would /need/ 20. > Im very interested in using merb sponsor it. As I say through pm with > the merb staff my society have a big experience with ruby framework > and personally I made some like 100+ websites/webapps. > > So, for me is necessary focus to some points: > > 1) Make merb more coincise (was born with some django philosophy... > but now?) If you mean more concise by having more gems then I think you may benefit from taking a look at how many of those gems you need. For me merb is as concise as I need. > 2) Make merb a little smaller (in terms of gems) Smaller than one ;-) > 3) Make merb more stable but revolutionary > Haven't had any stability issues and we use it in production across a cluster. > 1) More Coincise: > > Now in merb for do one thing we have a lot of way for do that, I love > extensibility but for me I necessary (at the moment) have a one/two > way for do a thing, then if a developper want can easily extend it. > > Some examples of question of friends that tell me: > > Why merb-gen stack / core ? > Why merb-gen flat / very flat ? > We originally used merb-gen to generate a very flat layout but you're right, it isn't needed as 'very flat' can be done by hand. > Why we can't simply have merb-gen app and merb-gen tiny-app ? Two > coincise way ... and a developper can easly extend it. > Don't disagree other than to say how does having the other options get in your way? Having the very-flat option helped bootstrap our use of merb last year > Why we have gems for merb-actions-args? Why is not in the core? > Never used it, not even sure what it is. Probably that's a good argument for not having it in the core. > For example personally I forgotten that merb-action-args is > incompatible with ruby 1.9, so why confuse a lot of us (not all) with > them? > Thanks, didn't know that but doesn't that argue against having it in the core - our app seems to run fine with 1.9.1 > Why merb-params-protections? Why is not in the core? At the moment I > don't remember the answer > Again, we have a perfectly good use-case - we have production apps not using it and I'm sure we wouldn't be alone. > 2) Make merb a little smaller (in terms of gems): > One of your points above seem to argue against this. Also wouldn't more optional gems when brought into core potentially reduce stability? > 3) Make merb more stable but revolutionary > > As I say now (for me) is the moment to focus for use merb in > production. A slogan is necessary few things that work well! > We're in production for a year now without problems and our use of Merb is only growing! > Then, is time to give some thing new to the ruby scene, as Sinatra do. > > Merb now can't be a "mirror" of rails but a new framework. > > For example, merb-slices, some love it some don't love it, personally > I hate it, not because I don't apreciate it but because I very very > very complicated read the code written from antother person. Slices > like rails-engines are not linear. Why we can "duplicate" a thing that > just exist and we don't try to create a new way? > > I love one thing of django, the multiapp support. > > I dream but for me a thing like that will be beautiful: > > $ merb-gen project store > $ cd store > $ merb-gen app core > $ merb-gen app frontend-ecommerce-1 > $ merb-gen app frontend-ecommerce-2 > $ merb-gen app frontend-ecommerce-3 > > Then our dir can be like this: http://gist.github.com/225365 > > We can also made a routing like sinatra + sinatra-map that can be > "innovative" > > Other things in my opinion is very important to discuss: > > - Add a I18n (for example 30% of our sites use it) We use unicode and unicode-chars. > - Use DM as default? There are big big project (like twitter) that use > it? Is stable? > We don't use an orm at all. Love the fact that we don't need to bloat the core with this. > > At the end for me is necessary big refactoring so all of us can focus > to the **very important things** and use check test stress the "core" > services of merb. We're pretty happy with the core. I wouldn't be keen to have a big increase in this. Remember "no code has fewer bugs than no code" Chris --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
