[typo] Catching up with Rails
scott at sigkill.org
Thu Sep 28 13:39:00 EDT 2006
I'm kind of conflicted about this. On one hand, the end result will
probably be great. On the other hand, this is going to mean a long
period of instability and random user complaints while we finish
migrating everything. And it'll also remove a bunch of code that I
more or less understand and replace it with new code that I'll have to
Perhaps we should consider finishing up 4.1 first and then start on
this? When is Rails 1.2 due?
On 9/28/06, Piers Cawley <pdcawley at bofh.org.uk> wrote:
> You may or may not know that I have a local branch in my SVK
> repository in which I'm trying to make typo work with edge rails.
> It's, ah, fun.
> I've reached the point where I am seriously considering removing a
> huge amount of code, leaving only the basic article permalinks and
> index/search pages as they are, then slowly adding (probably starting
> with posting a new article via the web) back in ways that play well
> with the new Rails Way; otherwise we end up pissing into the wind.
> This may take a while. But I'm not entirely sure it's a bad
> idea. We're carrying a great deal of cruft in the typo codebase where
> it turns out that we've zigged before rails zagged.
> My initial roadmap for this approach is looking like:
> * Strip out everything but the basic blog display.
> * Think about URL design for everything but permalinks, ideally moving
> to a RESTful structure. The current /articles tree doesn't really
> play well with the resourceful approach, but that's fine - it's a
> useful archive structure when you're looking at the blog as a blog.
> Currently I'm thinking in terms of resources like:
> /entries => Articles treated as Resources
> /feedback => conflating comments and trackbacks, useful for spam
> /sessions => RESTful authentication
> /rules => Spam policy
> But I expect this to be a process of discovery.
> * Add comments + Akismet based spam checking
> * Add RESTful authentication.
> * Add article/page posting
> My thinking is that most features should go back in quite quickly and
> we'll end up with a rather more robust application that gets to hand
> more stuff off to Rails than we're currently doing. We're more and
> more out of step with the framework and that's causing us pain.
> Piers Cawley <pdcawley at bofh.org.uk>
> Typo-list mailing list
> Typo-list at rubyforge.org
More information about the Typo-list