I was also wondering about that ... but that does make sense. Anything that makes the learning curve shallower is a positive.
Farms. On 16/01/2008, Sharon Rosner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 9:53 am, Aman Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shortly after the sequel-model split from core, the core was split off > > into its own sequel-core gem. I'm wondering why? > > > > The sequel gem is currently just two lines of code (require 'sequel- > > core'; require 'sequel-model')- it makes more sense to me to keep > > sequel's core in the sequel gem and maintain the model separately as > > the sequel_model gem. > > Originally I meant it to be the way you suggested, but then I thought > that people that would like to work with models would have to install > 'sequel_model' which is less intuitive than just installing 'sequel', > so I came up with the bundle idea, so by default people installing and > requiring 'sequel' would get the model functionality as well as the > core. > > I think that's more intuitive than requiring 'sequel_model'. People > who are only interested in the core functionality (and who are almost > always more advanced programmers) can deal with requiring sequel_core. > Does this make sense? > > sharon > > > -- Chris Farmiloe web: www.oxdi.eu direct: 01273 782909 skype: chrisfarms --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" 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/sequel-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
