On 5 Sep 2006, at 12:58 , Tomas Jogin wrote:
Thanks, but, really, that's not advice at all. Advice would be to offer a different solution to contextual and/or same-named identifiers, compartmentalized features, functionality and so forth -- the very problem that the use of namespaces solves.Furthermore, namespaces, unlike the goto-statement and similar things you "shouldn't do" in programming, aren't thought of as "harmful" practices in general. It's just within Rails that namespaces are frowned upon, and, IMHO, for no good reason (the only semi-logical reason I can find is: "we can't seem to get 'em right"). Note that I'm NOT casting any blame here, nor expecting any favors or service; I'm just rejecting the IMHO baseless proposition to "not use" modules infavor of, well... in favor of nothing else.Namespaces aren't evil, not at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using namespaces in general. It's too bad that they just don't work very well in Rails (but much better now than previously, of course).
I'm not saying anything is evil or harmful at all. I've been bitten by module namespace issues in the past and trust me, it's a pain to debug. I'm just telling you from experience that you might want to consider not using modules if you don't absolutely have to.
That _is_ advice in my opinion.If you really need modules and you have the time, why not fix the module namespace issue and submit a patch? I'm sure you'll get this accepted in no time.
Kind regards, Thijs -- Fingertips - http://www.fngtps.com Phone: +31 (0)6 24204845 Skype: tvandervossen MSN Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iChat/AOL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
