On 19/04/2012, at 3:27 PM, Craig Read wrote: > >> But the fact that it breaks default functionality (and the developers >> response) scares me. > What do you mean by "developers response"? > > I was referring to Ernie's response to the issue you raised, and his response > to the related issue: https://github.com/ernie/squeel/issues/67 > > His responses seem to indicate he (thinks he) knows better about how the > Rails core internals should work. > He also cited the lack of documentation as a justification: "In AR > documentation, symbols are never shown as a value in examples." > > As pcantrell noted: "Call it questionable or not, but squeel is explicitly > narrowing the set of valid inputs on existing ActiveRecord methods. That is a > Bad Thing™".
Ohh, yeah. I think the use of symbols is the biggest controversy in Squeel. Interestingly enough pcantrell later agrees with Ernie: https://github.com/ernie/squeel/issues/67#issuecomment-2274798 Your intransigence about this suddenly makes a lot more sense! I use symbols in queries extensively and don't like to be forced into String. But apart from that I just dropped Squell into the app and everything just worked. I only had to change Symbols to Strings in a couple of places. > > This is what the author replied in a tweet: > https://twitter.com/erniemiller/status/192082433540231168 > "FWIW, it's much less intrusive than MetaWhere was, and it saw tons of use." > > He can interperet the intentions of the Rails core devs (based on their docs > or not), or justify his code by comparing it to other Gems as much as he > likes. But unless he's prepared to convice the core team that his way is > better, I think he should "go with the flow", or at least avoid breaking > their code. That makes sense. But it seems the only real concern here is the use of symbols that is sacrificed in favour of another "feature". > I do still like the look of squeel, but that concern is a big one. I know > I'd have to change code to make my projects work. > > It does raise the question of how many Gems are out there that would cause > Rails to fail its test suite though. > And personally, that'd be the most comprehensive test of "sociability" you > easily could do for any gem. > If you can't install your gem without causing the Rails test suite to fail, > I'd consider that "A Bad Thing". Hmm, how how is it possible to run Rails test suite with Squeel installed? Are you saying that you personally wouldn't use squeel in production? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en.
