Peter, When you invoke "convention over configuration" you have to bear in mind that *your* convention is a product of the problems you're trying to solve - and those problems may not match the majority's problem-space.
There's nothing in your proposal that I can see which would make any of my applications better structured - but I recognize that my own sample isn't necessarily representative of the whole. The best way to show us how much better things would be is to take your ideas and implement them as a plugin - that way everyone can plainly see the benefits and how much the convention buys us. Regards, Trevor On 19-Jul-07, at 11:41 AM, Peter wrote: > > The bottom line is, convention over configuration is the rails motto > but it doesn't seem to be in these cases. It is short sighted to > think that each application designed should only serve the purposes > within that application. The concept of modules and components are > necessary in a proper software design. How often do people reuse > their controllers, models, etc.? My biggest question is, what is the > resistance? Why not have more specific directory structures that > organize our controllers/models without the worry of conflicting > names. I can't think of a single reason why not. It's starting to > begin with the new map.namespace functionality for edge rails' > routing. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
