[rspec-users] Associations should be private

[Mark Wilden]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Michael Latta <lattam at mac.com> wrote:


> The point is to never assume the structure of another object, but to let it
> decide that.  So you never get A.B.C you always use a method on A to do the
> work.  You get a lot more methods on A but the structure underneath can
> change without a ripple effect.
>

Sounds like future-proofing to me. In the case of libraries, that can be a
good thing. For application code, it flies in the face of YAGNI.

 Using plugins that do this too simply removes some of the value.  If they
> always map the underlying structure you have not gained much.
>

Yes, it was the "auto-demetering" that I was mainly responding to.

The whole convention over configuration means that the underlying structure
> tends to be exposed more than good software engineering practice would
> advise, but it works because most of the time the cost to fix a change is
> actually lower in Ruby than the cost of preventing the change.
>

"Embrace change" - Kent Beck. The whole white book is predicated on what you
just pointed out about Rails.

But here I go again, off the RSpec track...

///ark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20081001/f58aaeb2/attachment-0001.html>