On Jan 15, 2008 8:29 PM, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My feelings exactly. That was my point to post +1 to the ticket. I > > really fail to see the benefits of this change. application.rb used to > > be called abstract_controller.rb - so we've already been on that road > > before. > > Well, what are the other benefits of having a consistenly named > parent controller. Consistency is great, but are there features that > are easier with this?
I think for a framework, consistency is a goal in itself, it's one key feature developers look for in a framework. For one, Application is not a controller, since no actions are directed at it, merely removing that confusion is a benefit. Ruby allows you to alias classes (ApplicationController = Application), so it will be interesting to do a backward compatible switch and survey how many plugins can handle it. Assaf > > For example, are there any changes for plugin authors? Does this > make *something* they do any easier? > > > > -- > Cheers > > Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
