On Jan 12, 2008 3:56 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still find it confusing that the class ApplicationController resides > in a file called application.rb, not following the class/file naming > convention used elsewhere. > > But I also find it confusing that it's called ApplicationController to > begin with, given that it doesn't expose any actions and I never route > to it. It's simply a base class for application-wide functionality. > So why not call it Application? > > Controller superclasses don't have to use the Controller prefix, as > evident by ApplicationController::Base.
I think Assaf hit the nail on the head. Doing this would keep the controller namespace completely clean (ie. someone could have ApplicationController if they want, even though that would probably be a bad idea). Granted, it might be too much pain since every single controller file would then have to change. Maybe Rails has matured to the point where this kind of fix is simply too painful relative to the benefit? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
