[Nitro] Og Revisted

TRANS transfire at gmail.com
Fri Feb 10 08:58:02 EST 2006

On 2/10/06, Emmanouil Piperakis <epiperak at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not the web devel expert, but let me put just a small piece of
> advice...
> I believe Nitro/Og should stay as is, conceptually for the moment. George
> had/has an idea and a lot of reason for this idea. He should be advised for
> any large scale changes. Additions should be welcomed
> as long as they do not de-RAIL Nitro/Og (hehe... nice) from its original
> purpose.
> The major disadvantage (I do not need to mention the tones of advantages,
> they are obvious) of having many developers working on the same idea is that
> rarely a complete consensus on the idea is reached. In that case a hierarchy
> in the decission process always helps. I suggest that we / you / everyone
> plan new changes / upgrades for Nitro/Og and even implement them, but let
> George decide what should be incorperated.

Fair enough. I should make a point that the reason I am looking at
this now is because I'm about to create an application which would use
Og. I've worked on Og before and saw how some of the code really could
use improvements and this is one of them. To be very clear what
changes for the end-user is basically:

  class SomeClass
    property :aprop, Sting


  class SomeClass
    property :aprop, Sting


or if you prefer traditional Ruby way of doing such things, like:

  class SomeClass
    is Enchanted
    property :aprop, Sting

Nothing more.


More information about the Nitro-general mailing list