On Jun 11, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Pier-Olivier Thibault <poth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:57:59 PM UTC-4, Matt jones wrote:
>
> 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 believe it would be the opposite, people, instead of using the
> config/initializers/*.rb, they would use mechanics that Rails provides by
> default - The initializer method that any railtie class have. Here's an
> example of an application.rb file that would include such
> initializer:https://gist.github.com/pothibo/a32f686aed0f03729157
In your example, the generator would have to *insert* an additional
`initializer ‘whatever’ do` block into the existing generator. That’s already
going to make things more complicated; finding the appropriate place is not
trivial, especially if the generator needs to play nice with namespaced
applications, such as:
module MyTopLevel
module MyProject
class Application < Rails::Application
initializer 'configure devise' do |app|
app.config.devise.somethin = 'blabla'
end
end
end
end
A simplistic strategy (“insert before the 2nd end from the end of the file”)
will fall down here.
More importantly, the *size* of what’s added is significant. The Devise
generator alone drops 260+ lines (mostly comments) to help users configure
things.
The application.rb file seems like it could get quite long, and then somebody
will propose to split it up into, say, a directory of smaller files… :)
—Matt Jones
>
> 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-co...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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
