On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:03:09 +0200, Michael Koziarski wrote: > We're still pretty skeptical about plugin dependencies on the whole. > Plugins monkeypatching plugins seems like a bit of a recipe for > disaster. However we could do something easy like: > > config.plugins = [:gems, :some_kind_of_thing, :all] > > So you specify the key things at the beginning of the array, then just > use :all to mean 'then everything else in alphabetical order'.
That still means that plugins aren't really plug-in anymore. If I use a plugin that needs acts_as_list at initialization, and that plugin happens to be named "aardvark" instead of "zebra", I'll have to go manually add acts_as_list to the beginning of config.plugins? Why not just manually copy the plugin code into lib/ as well? I understand the core team's traditional reluctance to add plugin dependencies, for both complexity and YAGNI reasons. I remember a ticket a while back where somebody said "But if I have 70 plugins, it becomes a pain", and DHH rightly responded "You don't need 70 plugins". But with the move towards pushing more and more core functionality into plugins, it really should be revisited - if only to be re-argued in the present tense. I'm working on a relatively small app on Edge that already uses a dozen plugins, and we've just gotten started. I don't think that's going to be uncommon. -- Jay Levitt | Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit. http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
