Hello, I''m currently working on a plugin. To set the (minimal) testing environment for the plugin up I invoke Rails::Initializer (instead of loading config/environment.rb). As the plugin just depends on AR I tried to disable all apparently unneeded frameworks. However, it''s not possible to disable more than :action_mailer and :active_resource. Loading the database config file e. g. requires ERB which again is part of ActionView. ActionController can''t be disabled as ActionView depends on it in turn (AV requires html-parser ''html/document'', which isn''t found unless AC is loaded). Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for rather autonomous frameworks. Cheers Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety > as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for > rather autonomous frameworks.We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the frameworks where that makes sense. If it''s as simple as a few missing requires for things like erb then we can definitely take patches to fix that. Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high priority goal for most people, but there''s no reason to make it impossible to turn AR off for example. -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:24, Michael Koziarski wrote:> >> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety >> as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for >> rather autonomous frameworks. > > We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the frameworks where > that makes sense. If it''s as simple as a few missing requires for > things like erb then we can definitely take patches to fix that. > > Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high priority goal for most > people, but there''s no reason to make it impossible to turn AR off for > example.This does work (or at least used to), I''ve got a 2.0.2 app around somewhere that doesn''t use ActiveRecord (and it was as simple as using config.frameworks) Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I just tried it with 2.1.0 uncommented the line; config.frameworks -[ :active_record, :active_resource, :action_mailer ] and nothing works unfortunately. I imagine it does work sometimes, but given there''s no test on the functionality... On Jul 31, 10:47 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:24, Michael Koziarski wrote: > > > > >> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety > >> as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for > >> rather autonomous frameworks. > > > We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the frameworks where > > that makes sense. If it''s as simple as a few missing requires for > > things like erb then we can definitely take patches to fix that. > > > Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high priority goal for most > > people, but there''s no reason to make it impossible to turn AR off for > > example. > > This does work (or at least used to), I''ve got a 2.0.2 app around > somewhere that doesn''t use ActiveRecord (and it was as simple as using > config.frameworks) > > Fred--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
http://gist.github.com/3594 On Aug 1, 9:30 am, "matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com" <matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com> wrote:> I just tried it with 2.1.0 > > uncommented the line; > config.frameworks -> [ :active_record, :active_resource, :action_mailer ] > > and nothing works unfortunately. > > I imagine it does work sometimes, > but given there''s no test on the functionality... > > On Jul 31, 10:47 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:24, Michael Koziarski wrote: > > > >> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety > > >> as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for > > >> rather autonomous frameworks. > > > > We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the frameworks where > > > that makes sense. If it''s as simple as a few missing requires for > > > things like erb then we can definitely take patches to fix that. > > > > Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high priority goal for most > > > people, but there''s no reason to make it impossible to turn AR off for > > > example. > > > This does work (or at least used to), I''ve got a 2.0.2 app around > > somewhere that doesn''t use ActiveRecord (and it was as simple as using > > config.frameworks) > > > Fred--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thats because you have active record mentioned in one of the initializers: from /Users/matthew/code/nodb/config/initializers/new_rails_defaults.rb:5 Just comment it out / remove it from there. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM, matthewrudyjacobs@gmail.com <matthewrudyjacobs@gmail.com> wrote:> > http://gist.github.com/3594 > > On Aug 1, 9:30 am, "matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com" > <matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I just tried it with 2.1.0 >> >> uncommented the line; >> config.frameworks ->> [ :active_record, :active_resource, :action_mailer ] >> >> and nothing works unfortunately. >> >> I imagine it does work sometimes, >> but given there''s no test on the functionality... >> >> On Jul 31, 10:47 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:24, Michael Koziarski wrote: >> >> > >> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety >> > >> as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for >> > >> rather autonomous frameworks. >> >> > > We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the frameworks where >> > > that makes sense. If it''s as simple as a few missing requires for >> > > things like erb then we can definitely take patches to fix that. >> >> > > Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high priority goal for most >> > > people, but there''s no reason to make it impossible to turn AR off for >> > > example. >> >> > This does work (or at least used to), I''ve got a 2.0.2 app around >> > somewhere that doesn''t use ActiveRecord (and it was as simple as using >> > config.frameworks) >> >> > Fred > > >-- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
good point, thanks. So it does work! BOOM. On Aug 1, 2:52 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <mich...@koziarski.com> wrote:> Thats because you have active record mentioned in one of the initializers: > > from /Users/matthew/code/nodb/config/initializers/new_rails_defaults.rb:5 > > Just comment it out / remove it from there. > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM, matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com > > > > <matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://gist.github.com/3594 > > > On Aug 1, 9:30 am, "matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com" > > <matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just tried it with 2.1.0 > > >> uncommented the line; > >> config.frameworks -> >> [ :active_record, :active_resource, :action_mailer ] > > >> and nothing works unfortunately. > > >> I imagine it does work sometimes, > >> but given there''s no test on the functionality... > > >> On Jul 31, 10:47 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> > On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:24, Michael Koziarski wrote: > > >> > >> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to keep complexety > >> > >> as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether there''re plans for > >> > >> rather autonomous frameworks. > > >> > > We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the frameworks where > >> > > that makes sense. If it''s as simple as a few missing requires for > >> > > things like erb then we can definitely take patches to fix that. > > >> > > Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high priority goal for most > >> > > people, but there''s no reason to make it impossible to turn AR off for > >> > > example. > > >> > This does work (or at least used to), I''ve got a 2.0.2 app around > >> > somewhere that doesn''t use ActiveRecord (and it was as simple as using > >> > config.frameworks) > > >> > Fred > > -- > Cheers > > Koz--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---