On Mar 3, 2008, at 7:42 AM, David A. Black wrote:
> Rails 2.0 is in this respects a superset of
> 1.x. You don't have to use the RESTful facilities
First, thank you David for your insights regarding REST and immutable
resources. Second, I think the major pain point is that Rails 2.0 is
not a proper superset (or rather 1.x is not a proper subset). They
more overlap, and places where this is most evident is dynamic
scaffolding and pagination.
Rails does, indeed, encourage RESTful design to the point where you
have to work around it if you don't conceptualize your application in
that manner. Rails is opinionated. We get that. And the opinion is
that if you can't use the REST verbs and a cluster of controllers to
describe your application as a set of resources you need to re-examine
your design. Heretically, I sometimes feel that twisting my design
around a post to make it RESTful is not the best use of my client's
money.
On the scaffolding/pagination issue, there are ways to make 2.0x
behave similarly to 1.x by installing the extracted plugins. If you're
a newbie, it is not evident that you have to do this, but after some
Googling ways to make 2.0x can build the Depot app. On the application
design philosophy issue, that's baked in at a routing level and you
get the joy of working around the (IMO) screwiest part of Rails to
tweak: Routes.
But, if your opinion is too divergent from Rails, there are merb and a
number of other up-and-coming frameworks that reserve some opinion.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
