respond_to API

[Kevin Williams]

I must be emotionally attached to the current API, because the
proposal isn't clicking for me. On one hand it makes sense, but on the
other hand it feels disconnected and doesn't have an obvious flow.

"respond_to" may seem to be a magic box in terms of deciding what
format to use, but the flow is clear to me.

The "provides" declaration gives a very clear definition of what
formats to use but appears to have too much magic in *how* the format
choice is actually made.

Just voicing a concern from a different perspective. Feel free to
ignore me - still a newbie some days. :)

On 10/16/07, Michael D. Ivey <ivey at gweezlebur.com> wrote:
> I'll probably do my respond_to API rewrite, as discussed here:
>
>         http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/merb-devel/2007-September/000275.html
>
> sometime this week, unless someone has come up with a better API.
>
> I'll also work in http://merb.devjavu.com/ticket/227 at the same time.
>
> Any serious objections?
> _______________________________________________
> Merb-devel mailing list
> Merb-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel
>


-- 
Cheers,

Kevin Williams
http://kevwil.com/
http://www.almostserio.us/
http://kevwil.jaiku.com/