On Oct 01, 2008, at 8:17 pm, Mark Wilden wrote:
Sounds like future-proofing to me. In the case of libraries, that can be a good thing. For application code, it flies in the face of YAGNI.
Actually I don't think that's a YAGNI. You need *an* interface to your models, the question is whether to build one that litters trainwrecks through your code, or one that is internally refactorable.
Or, you could "take the first Demeter bullet" and use associations until they cause a breakage...
The whole convention over configuration means that the underlying structure tends to be exposed more than good software engineering practice would advise, but it works because most of the time the cost to fix a change is actually lower in Ruby than the cost of preventing the change.
... which takes advantage of this property of Ruby.
"Embrace change" - Kent Beck. The whole white book is predicated on what you just pointed out about Rails.
You meant to say Ruby there, right? ;o) Ashley -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://aviewfromafar.net/ _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
