[Lift] Re: LiftRules inconsistencies (including FactoryMaker grump)

2010-02-05 Thread Marius
Yeah it is not clear to me why not just using function like:

LiftRules.stripComments: () = Boolean


Maybe I missed previous talks, or just not remember it it doesn't look
that API simplified or became more intuitive by adding
FactoryMakers ...

Br's,
Marius

On Feb 5, 5:35 pm, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote:
 Guys,

 I just wanted to have a grumpy moan about FactoryMaker. Now, this must
 easily be the most complicated / confusing piece of scala code in
 Lift.

 Its totally non-trivial implementation and its levels of miss-
 direction (and total lack of examples) make it an utter nightmare to
 figure out what one needs to do to use it for pre-assigned vals in
 LiftRules.

 This brings me neatly onto my next point: LiftRules and its occasional
 use of FactoryMaker, partial functions and mutable vars. I appreciate
 that this is partially a legacy thing as many different people within
 the team add stuff to LiftRules, however I thought FactoryMaker was
 brought in to facilitate object mocking / testing right? Shouldn't it
 be the first-order choice for configuration? weather or not that is
 the case, why oh why are there no explanations in the comments for
 LiftRules where factory maker is used as to how to alter those
 configuration options?

 For example:

     LiftRules.stripComments.default.set(() = false)

 This is totally non-obvious - if we are going to use stuff like this,
 it really out to be in the comments. Stuff like this can seriously
 affect Lift's ease of use, and considering the current lack of
 documentation we need to be careful about what we are doing here.

 Sorry for the grump, i just felt this was warranted.

 Cheers, Tim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Lift group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.



[Lift] Re: LiftRules inconsistencies (including FactoryMaker grump)

2010-02-05 Thread Timothy Perrett
If I remember correctly, it was a result of some fairly well-made
dependency injection arguments around testing and fully mocking the
lift pipeline / process.

I agree though, its a fairly crappy API.

Cheers, Tim

On Feb 5, 3:38 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yeah it is not clear to me why not just using function like:

 LiftRules.stripComments: () = Boolean

 Maybe I missed previous talks, or just not remember it it doesn't look
 that API simplified or became more intuitive by adding
 FactoryMakers ...

 Br's,
 Marius

 On Feb 5, 5:35 pm, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote:



  Guys,

  I just wanted to have a grumpy moan about FactoryMaker. Now, this must
  easily be the most complicated / confusing piece of scala code in
  Lift.

  Its totally non-trivial implementation and its levels of miss-
  direction (and total lack of examples) make it an utter nightmare to
  figure out what one needs to do to use it for pre-assigned vals in
  LiftRules.

  This brings me neatly onto my next point: LiftRules and its occasional
  use of FactoryMaker, partial functions and mutable vars. I appreciate
  that this is partially a legacy thing as many different people within
  the team add stuff to LiftRules, however I thought FactoryMaker was
  brought in to facilitate object mocking / testing right? Shouldn't it
  be the first-order choice for configuration? weather or not that is
  the case, why oh why are there no explanations in the comments for
  LiftRules where factory maker is used as to how to alter those
  configuration options?

  For example:

      LiftRules.stripComments.default.set(() = false)

  This is totally non-obvious - if we are going to use stuff like this,
  it really out to be in the comments. Stuff like this can seriously
  affect Lift's ease of use, and considering the current lack of
  documentation we need to be careful about what we are doing here.

  Sorry for the grump, i just felt this was warranted.

  Cheers, Tim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Lift group.
To post to this group, send email to lift...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.