I completely understand the difference between a public interface and an internal one meant for extending the framework. However, the language [whether intentional or not] implies that Rails has neither which is not the case. My complaint is with the clumsy, casual language [formerly employed as FUD by the Merb camp] still being promulgated under the guise of Rails "activism". If one is not talking about the public API, one should not use the term public API cf: http://twitter.com/merbist/status/1838558766. If one is talking about a specific definition of API, one would do well to clarify this specific definition rather than using the plain term as if everyone automatically understands that by "API" one means something else.
On the plus side, I don't feel piqued by your reply at all. In fact I thank you for the free ad hominem, strawman, and intellectual condescension you've provided. I'll keep it around 'til I need it. RSL On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Michael Schuerig <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Wednesday 20 May 2009, RSL wrote: > > I agree that Rails has made many changes to it's public API and how > > we could all benefit from more stability [as well as the irony that > > in order to get this fabled stable API, we're going to break all of > > the previous one]. > > I'm not sure you've understood what I wrote. Do you realize that there > is a difference between interfaces targetted at application developers > as opposed to interfaces targetted at framework extension programmers? > > > It's the language of all this that bugs me and I > > feel needs to change in order to communicate accurately and honestly > > the situation instead of relying on the old responses and > > accusations. Were this not being used in the public forum by > > "activists", I wouldn't even raise the question. > > As far as language is concerned, my immediate impression was that you're > attacking(!) this issue in a rather unfortunate way. Too much > aggression, too little understanding. If you feel piqued by my wording, > you'll appreciate what I mean. > > Michael > > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Michael Schuerig > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Wednesday 20 May 2009, RSL wrote: > > > > Merb was always putting out this line about how Rails had no > > > > public API. I found it laughable at first because > > > > http://api.rubyonrails.org/ seemed to obviously refute this. > > > > However, recently I've noticed this same line still being trotted > > > > about, by "Rails" "activists" no less. Can someone give me an > > > > honest answer why this what seems to me to be a baldface lie is > > > > being promoted from within our own ranks now? > > > > > > Hold your horses. Rails having no public API is a mis-statement of > > > a very real shortcoming. As you point out, a public Application PI > > > is there indeed. What's missing is a defined interface for people > > > extending or otherwise hacking Rails. > > > > > > The usual approach is just to do what currently works. > > > Consequently, code like that is bound to break on updates to the > > > Rails code base. A defined interface could future-proof such code. > > > > > > It's unfortunate that the term API is used in this context as > > > that's not what the problem is about. An SPI (Service PI) it is > > > neither. I have no suggestion for a better term. > > > > -- > Michael Schuerig > mailto:[email protected] > http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
