[Nitro] Og Revisted

zimba.tm zimba.tm at gmail.com
Fri Feb 10 09:29:20 EST 2006


On Friday 10 February 2006 14:58, TRANS wrote:
> 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
>   end
>
> becomes
>
>   class SomeClass
>     property :aprop, Sting
>   end
>
>   Og.enchant(SomeClass)
>
> or if you prefer traditional Ruby way of doing such things, like:
>
>   class SomeClass
>     is Enchanted
>     property :aprop, Sting
>   end
>
> Nothing more.

I would also like a module enchant like :

module Model
  class SomeClass; property :my_prop; end
end

Og.enchant Model

-- 
Cheers,e
  zimba.tm

weblog : http://zimba.oree.ch



More information about the Nitro-general mailing list