[Nitro] Facets 2.0
william.full.moon at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 08:52:50 EST 2007
Hi folks ...
I like this. May I add one comment?
Make it ....
Or something along those lines.
... My reasoning is from OO development, not some much Ruby. In the main, I
have found it much better to have abstract classes, and to at least make
sure all application level code is in a derived class.
This suggestion encourages folks to think like that.
While I accept that the Ruby and Smalltalk paradigm is to be less
abstraction in base classes, for myself, I can hold my hand on my hear to
recommend this as the kind of general approach we want to encourage with a
framework like Nitro.
From: nitro-general-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:nitro-general-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of George Moschovitis
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2007 00:38
To: General discussion about Nitro
Subject: Re: [Nitro] Facets 2.0
Hmm, I planned to convert all
are you implying that core/more will be ...yore in 2.0?
On 1/30/07, George Moschovitis <george.moschovitis at gmail.com> wrote:
* get rid of the self/ folders. i've come to the conclusion
odds of a clash between an instance method and class method
...is how punctuated methods (!, ?, =) work too.
sounds ok to me...
* i want to get rid of the facet/ redirect folder (this is
...ld be harder to manage. howerver it's not quite as it
just get rid of facet, keep facets/more, facets/core, facets/yore
any other suggestions for the future Facets 2.0 are very
Include some more stuff from glue so I can finaly get rid of that
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 28-Jan-2007
More information about the Nitro-general