@Sandofsky:
views dir of project number 1 (irb) :
>> Dir["**/*.rhtml", "**/*.html.erb"].inject(0) { |total, file| total += `grep
>> -c "link_to_remote" #{file}`.to_i; }
=> 29
views dir of project number 2 (irb):
>> Dir["**/*.rhtml", "**/*.html.erb"].inject(0) { |total, file| total += `grep
>> -c "link_to_remote" #{file}`.to_i; }
=> 36
Would seem not everybody feels the same :)
(ps my unix-fu is not strong, so I might have messed those up...)
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Sandofsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think *_to_remote belong in a plugin. I can't remember the last time
> I used one.
>
>
> On Jul 7, 5:04 pm, Clemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nik,
>>
>> unfortunately, IMO it hardly is. First and foremost, UJS4Rails has
>> been unmaintained for more than 1 1/2 years for a simple reason: Dan
>> and Luke think that JavaScript should be written separately from the
>> app anyways. I'd have to say that I totally agree.
>>
>> As I mentioned in my first post, IMO it would probably be best to just
>> totally remove this stuff from Rails because it kinda hides bad
>> practice behind some framework code. In most areas, Rails evangelizes
>> best practices and opinions by making it more work for the programmer
>> to break the rules (think of set_table_name, for example). But in the
>> case of these helpers it's actually less work to break the rules (or,
>> rather, guides - speaking of unobtrusive javascript) than to follow
>> them.
>>
>> Especially those folks new to Rails (and probably not all that
>> experienced in web development in general) may be led astray where we
>> could easily guide them down the right or at least better way than the
>> current one. I'm not saying that Rails should be more newbie-friendly
>> - IMO the barriers of entry have already become too low if you take a
>> look at the questions asked at RailsForum or WWR. What I'm saying is
>> that Rails, to me, is a whole lot of good practices and rules and it
>> should be consistent in that way without any exceptions - not even
>> something as "humble" as the helpers.
>>
>> Anyways, I'd love to hear more opinions on the topic.
>>
>> Best,
>> - Clemens
>>
>> On Jul 8, 12:11 am, "Nik Wakelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Clemens,
>>
>> > Isn't this the kind of thing that the UJS for Rails plugin
>> > (http://ujs4rails.com/) already does?
>>
>> > Cheers,
>>
>> > Nik
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Clemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > Folks,
>>
>> > > my original intent for this post was to promote a patch that I
>> > > submitted to Lighthouse because Pratik marked it as invalid and told
>> > > me to raise the issue here if I found it to be important. Please find
>> > > the ticket
>> > > here:http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/517-link_to_remo....
>>
>> > > However, I've pondered the issue over the last few days and I think
>> > > the root of the problem is actually way deeper than I originally
>> > > thought. I think, Rails' JavaScript helpers and URL helpers need a
>> > > certain amount of refactoring for one really simple reason: Pretty
>> > > much everywhere, Rails follows best practice approaches and advocates
>> > > a really clean and professional way of "doing things right". Two
>> > > exceptions to that rule are parts of the JavaScript helpers and URL
>> > > helpers.
>>
>> > > Let me be a little bit more specific about issues that I think should
>> > > at least be considered:
>> > > - Like I said in the ticket, link_to_remote should populate the href
>> > > by default to provide a sensible fallback.
>> > > - submit_to_remote should be renamed or at least aliased to
>> > > button_to_remote just for the sake of being consistent with link_to/
>> > > link_to_remote.
>> > > - link_to/link_to_remote helpers should at least raise some kind of
>> > > notice when used with :method => :post/:put/:delete. Links shouldn't
>> > > be used to post/put/delete on a server. Yes, I know that it actually
>> > > wraps the whole thing inside a form, but still it's not a good idea.
>> > > The fact that potentially "destructive" actions should be handled with
>> > > a button should definitely be advocated.
>> > > - Not strictly related to the helpers: While I think that mostly
>> > > beginners use the scaffold feature, I feel that it still should
>> > > reflect best practices. Therefore, the delete link should be made into
>> > > a button.
>>
>> > > Now while most if this stuff isn't an issue for me personally (and it
>> > > probably neither is for you guys), I feel that there's definitely room
>> > > for improvement. If I was to decide, I'd totally remove all
>> > > *_to_remote stuff from the core and force people to write their
>> > > JavaScript by hand and/or use lowpro. But I think, the above things
>> > > would be quite easy to implement without being a harsh change.
>>
>> > > I kept this post short by intention in order for you to really read
>> > > it, but of course I've got some more ideas regarding these helpers.
>> > > I'd be more than happy to provide patches if you agree with me that
>> > > this is an issue worth being addressed.
>>
>> > > Please let me know what you think.
>>
>> > > Best,
>> > > - Clemens
>>
>> > --
>> > Nik Wakelin
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
--
Nik Wakelin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
