Yes, name_for is even better. I'll see if I can give it a shot this weekend. Pretty busy though, so we'll see...
Brian On Aug 20, 5:10 pm, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed on all counts. > > I think renaming to name_for(model) is what I'd prefer - sharing a > method name for two different purposes is ugly (though I had the same > thought myself). If you want to fork and patch, please be my guest. > Will try to get to it at some point otherwise - but I've not had much > luck focusing on TS tickets lately. > > -- > Pat > > On 20/08/2009, at 8:29 PM, Brian Terlson wrote: > > > > > The index class defines its own static name method that takes a model > > and returns the name of the index for that model. This is problematic > > as it overrides the standard behavior for name, which merely returns > > the name of the class. Other libraries may depend on name working > > properly. For example, rails_development_boost throws exceptions with > > TS installed to calling name on ThinkingSphinx::Index. > > > I would suggest renaming this method index_name, accepting a bit of > > redundancy for the sake of not overriding standard methods. Another > > alternative would be to make model an optional parameter defaulting to > > nil, and calling super if model is nil. Thoughts? > > > Thanks, > > Brian Terlson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thinking Sphinx" 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/thinking-sphinx?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
