On Jun 11, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Joe Fiorini <j...@joefiorini.com> wrote:
> I actually played with simplifying the structure some time ago, although for
> a completely different use case. I didn't end up going further than posting
> this PoC on Github, but it does actually boot up a Rails app.
>
> My changes:
>
> I moved all application/environment config into a file called
> "{APP_NAME}.rb". Inside this file I have a module/class definition for the
> application the same as any standard Rails app (looks like I accidentally
> made it a class rather than Application class inside APP_NAME module, oops),
> but I also added a Ruby DSL for specifying environment configs. IME, the
> files under config/environments don't normally get a ton of options, so
> having them all in one place would actually be easier.
>
Would this mean smashing all the files in config/initializers into one file?
That would make generators that wanted to create a default initializer (for
instance, the Devise InstallGenerator) much more complicated since they’d need
to insert code into the singular environment.rb file rather than just drop a
whole file into config/initializers.
I also haven’t seen much discussion of the “set up the paths but don’t load the
whole env” reasoning for boot.rb being separate from environment.rb (mentioned
down-thread by Ryan Bigg). Is this still something useful? If it isn’t, how
will (for instance) Rake tasks that don’t depend on :environment be switched
over?
—Matt JOnes
> I also removed the "app" folder and put directories that were in that folder
> in the root. This change was specific to the particular use case I was
> designing this for, API-only apps that don't have as much need for the "app"
> distinction.
>
> Once I started thinking about a smaller Rails structure, the idea of the
> "config" folder seemed unnecessary. Anytime I need access to my app's
> environment I require "application.rb", so to me the distinction between that
> and "environment.rb" doesn't serve much purpose. Given that, why can't
> "boot.rb" be in the root and all the environment config be consumed into
> "application.rb" with a DSL for creating environments like above?
>
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:50:48 PM UTC-4, Pier-Olivier Thibault wrote:
> How would you execute the rails binary without using `bundle exec` within an
> application? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of binstubs? Rails isn’t
> installed on anything but our development machines outside of bundler.
>
> I think this is somewhat open to discussion. What is the difference between
> 'bundle exec rails server' and './bin/rails server' besides the longer
> command, of course?
>
> I would personally pay the cost of longer commands to see lighter project
> file structure as I'm going to spend much more time in the project than I
> will executing commands. It's important to note that rake tasks are going to
> stay as is.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
