I finished the direct to erb functionality and added ability to configure it on or off. Should I default it to on? If so should we default the template view src to app/views rather than app/masterview? I still need to test this stuff on windows, but it is working on *nix. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/masterview-devel/attachments/20060617/bd52e5c7/attachment.htm
errr.... config.read_erb_direct_from_masterview is a pretty awful name, if ya don''t mind a bit of nitpicking. Maybe... ''generate_rhtml_files'' or something along those lines - want to express "should we create .rhtml output files or not" when running in rails, right?>> default the template view src to app/views rather than app/masterviewfine by me, that''s actually what I ended up deciding was the right way to organize my own app anyway, with or w/out generated .rhtml I''ve been chasing odd failures related to timestamps all day... I think there''s something very odd going on related to subclipse in my Ecipse setup, but even these end up being "my dev system" oddities it does seem to point out some issues with changed-template checking, I have to think about what''s happening a bit more. ~ Deb _____ From: masterview-devel-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:masterview-devel-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Barczewski Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 3:00 PM To: masterview-devel at rubyforge.org Subject: [Masterview-devel] Finished direct to erb I finished the direct to erb functionality and added ability to configure it on or off. Should I default it to on? If so should we default the template view src to app/views rather than app/masterview? I still need to test this stuff on windows, but it is working on *nix. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/masterview-devel/attachments/20060617/3ef00e14/attachment-0001.htm
Yes, I suppose so, I was trying to be descriptive about what the config point does from the code''s point of view but I think you are right from the users point of view something as simple as generate rhtml is better. On 6/17/06, Deb Lewis <djlewis at acm.org> wrote:> > errr.... > > config.read_erb_direct_from_masterview > > is a pretty awful name, if ya don''t mind a bit of nitpicking. > > Maybe... ''generate_rhtml_files'' or something along those lines - want to > express "should we create .rhtml output files or not" when running in rails, > right? > > >> default the template view src to app/views rather than app/masterview > > fine by me, that''s actually what I ended up deciding was the right way to > organize my own app anyway, with or w/out generated .rhtml > > I''ve been chasing odd failures related to timestamps all day... I think > there''s something very odd going on related to subclipse in my Ecipse setup, > but even these end up being "my dev system" oddities it does seem to point > out some issues with changed-template checking, I have to think about what''s > happening a bit more. > > ~ Deb > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/masterview-devel/attachments/20060618/9da1fceb/attachment.htm