[Nitro] How about moving part/lib/* to nitro/lib or raw/lib?
george.moschovitis at gmail.com
Fri Dec 7 03:21:42 EST 2007
In the begining I thought that parts should be in
but Tom has convinced me to go for a separate package. I think parts is a
greate name lets stick to this.
On Dec 7, 2007 5:45 AM, Trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 9:56 pm, Arne Brasseur <a... at arnebrasseur.net> wrote:
> > Unless the parts will be a seperate project/package this seems
> > reasonable. That way a require "part/admin" always works where a require
> > "nitro" works.
> Funny thing that. George wanted to use require 'part/...'. And I
> explained that would mean "part" basically becomes library unto itself
> -- then I obliged him by doing exactly that.
> So the question is, should "parts" be it's own package?
> But lets take this a step further, b/c ever since Raw cam into
> existence I've been a bit confused. Can Raw be used w/o Nitro? If not,
> what's the point of the split? There's hardly anything in the Nitro
> package actually. I figured the idea was that Raw represents the web-
> side of Nitro independent of Og, so if one really wanted they could
> tie Raw with another ORM system. Is that reasonable?
> The Nitro package, on the other hand, marries Raw and Og together --
> and parts generally effect both. So yes, if nowhere else, parts
> belongs in nitro. However if we can, I think it would be beneficial to
> pursue tighter SOC, and actually makes "parts" a separate package. In
> this way Nitro becomes a collection of libs that come together to form
> the complete framework, rather then being a portion of it too.
> However "parts" is probably too generic a name --we would need
> something to go along with Raw and Og.
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Nitro-general