thr3ads.net - Rails core - PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView [Jul 2011]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Yehuda Katz

2011-Jul-17 05:53 UTC

PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

A few days ago, I tried to use ActionView as a standalone dependency of
something I was writing. I ended up abandoning that attempt due to the
number of unrelated dependencies of the actionpack gem, which ActionView is
a part of:

$ gem dependency actionpack
Gem actionpack-3.1.0.rc1
  activemodel (= 3.1.0.rc1)
  activesupport (= 3.1.0.rc1)
  builder (~> 3.0.0)
  erubis (~> 2.7.0)
  i18n (~> 0.6.0beta1)
  rack (~> 1.3.0.beta2)
  rack-cache (~> 1.0.1)
  rack-mount (~> 0.8.1)
  rack-test (~> 0.6.0)
  sprockets (~> 2.0.0.beta.5)
  tzinfo (~> 0.3.27)


   - *activemodel* is used for ActiveModel::Naming for a few, mostly
   optional aspects of ActionPack related to automatically converting an
   ActiveModel compliant object into a key for params and routing. It uses only
   two methods of ActiveModel (ActiveModel::Naming.route_key and
   ActiveModel::Naming.param_key). *I think we should remove this dependency
   *, as the point of the ActiveModel API refactor in Rails 3 was to allow
   *any* object to work in AP. Additionally, only a few areas of the code use
   even the ActiveModel API.
   - *rack *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
   - *rack-cache *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
   - *rack-mount *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
   - *rack-test *is not used in ActionView *at all*. It is used only in
   ActionDispatch, and only in test helpers.
   - *sprockets* is used in ActionView, but only optionally, if asset
   compilation is desired.
   - *tzinfo *does not seem to be used at all except in a test

The short version is that ActionDispatch and ActionController use a lot of
the dependencies, but ActionView does not.

I would like to propose that we break out ActionView into its own gem with
only a few dependencies, and make ActionPack depend on it.

Yehuda Katz
Chief Technologist | Strobe
(ph) 718.877.1325

-- 
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.

Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas

2011-Jul-17 14:51 UTC

head link

Re: PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

Hi, Yehuda, thank you for your efforts in taking this deep research.

I''m all for it to reduce dependencies among packages. I''m
currently
(started some months ago, but I read some bits once and then) reading 
"Clean Code" from Robert C. Martin and there are great advices there, 
although it is very Java centric and there are better patterns for doing 
some of the examples in Ruby...

One of its advices, as well as of many other authors on the same 
subject, is to reduce coupling between classes, which also extends for 
packages. The more we isolate them, more we promote software reuse.

If my opinion matters at all, I would say to go with it.

I remember sometime ago I would like to have a framework for non-web 
applications that were Rails-like. I wanted ActiveRecord, the generators 
and file tree structure, as well as tests and ActiveSupport. But I 
didn''t want anything related to the web, like Rack, ActionPack, etc. 
Maybe Rails could move into this direction some day... At that time I 
was planning to start a traffic simulation system...

Cheers!

Rodrigo.

Em 17-07-2011 02:53, Yehuda Katz escreveu:> A few days ago, I tried to use ActionView as a standalone dependency 
> of something I was writing. I ended up abandoning that attempt due to 
> the number of unrelated dependencies of the actionpack gem, which 
> ActionView is a part of:
>
> $ gem dependency actionpack
> Gem actionpack-3.1.0.rc1
>   activemodel (= 3.1.0.rc1)
>   activesupport (= 3.1.0.rc1)
>   builder (~> 3.0.0)
>   erubis (~> 2.7.0)
>   i18n (~> 0.6.0beta1)
>   rack (~> 1.3.0.beta2)
>   rack-cache (~> 1.0.1)
>   rack-mount (~> 0.8.1)
>   rack-test (~> 0.6.0)
>   sprockets (~> 2.0.0.beta.5)
>   tzinfo (~> 0.3.27)
>
>     * /activemodel/ is used for ActiveModel::Naming for a few, mostly
>       optional aspects of ActionPack related to automatically
>       converting an ActiveModel compliant object into a key for params
>       and routing. It uses only two methods of ActiveModel
>       (ActiveModel::Naming.route_key and
>       ActiveModel::Naming.param_key). *I think we should remove this
>       dependency*, as the point of the ActiveModel API refactor in
>       Rails 3 was to allow *any* object to work in AP. Additionally,
>       only a few areas of the code use even the ActiveModel API.
>     * /rack /is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>     * /rack-cache /is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>     * /rack-mount /is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>     * /rack-test /is not used in ActionView *at all*. It is used only
>       in ActionDispatch, and only in test helpers.
>     * /sprockets/ is used in ActionView, but only optionally, if asset
>       compilation is desired.
>     * /tzinfo /does not seem to be used at all except in a test
>
> The short version is that ActionDispatch and ActionController use a 
> lot of the dependencies, but ActionView does not.
>
> I would like to propose that we break out ActionView into its own gem 
> with only a few dependencies, and make ActionPack depend on it.
>
> Yehuda Katz
> Chief Technologist | Strobe
> (ph) 718.877.1325 <tel:718.877.1325>
>
-- 
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.

Ben Langfeld

2011-Jul-17 15:43 UTC

head link

Re: PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

Apologies for the thread hijack, but I certainly think abstracting more of
rails out so it can be used in non-web projects would be good. For example,
with Adhearsion, we need an initialization system much like rails has. It
looks like we''re going to have to do that ourselves, rather than being
able
to make use of all the excellent stuff in railties. If there were a remote
chance some sort of abstraction would make it upstream, we''d be all for
contributing to it, but I''m not certain that would be the case.

Regards,
Ben Langfeld


On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
<rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> Hi, Yehuda, thank you for your efforts in taking this deep research.
>
> I''m all for it to reduce dependencies among packages. I''m
currently
> (started some months ago, but I read some bits once and then) reading
"Clean
> Code" from Robert C. Martin and there are great advices there,
although it
> is very Java centric and there are better patterns for doing some of the
> examples in Ruby...
>
> One of its advices, as well as of many other authors on the same subject,
> is to reduce coupling between classes, which also extends for packages. The
> more we isolate them, more we promote software reuse.
>
> If my opinion matters at all, I would say to go with it.
>
> I remember sometime ago I would like to have a framework for non-web
> applications that were Rails-like. I wanted ActiveRecord, the generators
and
> file tree structure, as well as tests and ActiveSupport. But I
didn''t want
> anything related to the web, like Rack, ActionPack, etc. Maybe Rails could
> move into this direction some day... At that time I was planning to start a
> traffic simulation system...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Rodrigo.
>
> Em 17-07-2011 02:53, Yehuda Katz escreveu:
>
> A few days ago, I tried to use ActionView as a standalone dependency of
> something I was writing. I ended up abandoning that attempt due to the
> number of unrelated dependencies of the actionpack gem, which ActionView is
> a part of:
>
>  $ gem dependency actionpack
> Gem actionpack-3.1.0.rc1
>   activemodel (= 3.1.0.rc1)
>   activesupport (= 3.1.0.rc1)
>   builder (~> 3.0.0)
>   erubis (~> 2.7.0)
>   i18n (~> 0.6.0beta1)
>   rack (~> 1.3.0.beta2)
>   rack-cache (~> 1.0.1)
>   rack-mount (~> 0.8.1)
>   rack-test (~> 0.6.0)
>   sprockets (~> 2.0.0.beta.5)
>   tzinfo (~> 0.3.27)
>
>
>    - *activemodel* is used for ActiveModel::Naming for a few, mostly
>    optional aspects of ActionPack related to automatically converting an
>    ActiveModel compliant object into a key for params and routing. It uses
only
>    two methods of ActiveModel (ActiveModel::Naming.route_key and
>    ActiveModel::Naming.param_key). *I think we should remove this
>    dependency*, as the point of the ActiveModel API refactor in Rails 3
>    was to allow *any* object to work in AP. Additionally, only a few areas
of
>    the code use even the ActiveModel API.
>    - *rack *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>    - *rack-cache *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>    - *rack-mount *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>    - *rack-test *is not used in ActionView *at all*. It is used only in
>    ActionDispatch, and only in test helpers.
>    - *sprockets* is used in ActionView, but only optionally, if asset
>    compilation is desired.
>    - *tzinfo *does not seem to be used at all except in a test
>
>  The short version is that ActionDispatch and ActionController use a lot
> of the dependencies, but ActionView does not.
>
>  I would like to propose that we break out ActionView into its own gem
> with only a few dependencies, and make ActionPack depend on it.
>
> Yehuda Katz
> Chief Technologist | Strobe
> (ph) 718.877.1325
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
-- 
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.

Aaron Patterson

2011-Jul-18 05:31 UTC

head link

Re: PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 02:53:13PM +0900, Yehuda Katz
wrote:> A few days ago, I tried to use ActionView as a standalone dependency of
> something I was writing. I ended up abandoning that attempt due to the
> number of unrelated dependencies of the actionpack gem, which ActionView is
> a part of:
> 
> $ gem dependency actionpack
> Gem actionpack-3.1.0.rc1
>   activemodel (= 3.1.0.rc1)
>   activesupport (= 3.1.0.rc1)
>   builder (~> 3.0.0)
>   erubis (~> 2.7.0)
>   i18n (~> 0.6.0beta1)
>   rack (~> 1.3.0.beta2)
>   rack-cache (~> 1.0.1)
>   rack-mount (~> 0.8.1)
>   rack-test (~> 0.6.0)
>   sprockets (~> 2.0.0.beta.5)
>   tzinfo (~> 0.3.27)
> 
> 
>    - *activemodel* is used for ActiveModel::Naming for a few, mostly
>    optional aspects of ActionPack related to automatically converting an
>    ActiveModel compliant object into a key for params and routing. It uses
only
>    two methods of ActiveModel (ActiveModel::Naming.route_key and
>    ActiveModel::Naming.param_key). *I think we should remove this
dependency
>    *, as the point of the ActiveModel API refactor in Rails 3 was to allow
>    *any* object to work in AP. Additionally, only a few areas of the code
use
>    even the ActiveModel API.
>    - *rack *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>    - *rack-cache *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>    - *rack-mount *is not used in ActionView *at all*.
>    - *rack-test *is not used in ActionView *at all*. It is used only in
>    ActionDispatch, and only in test helpers.
>    - *sprockets* is used in ActionView, but only optionally, if asset
>    compilation is desired.
>    - *tzinfo *does not seem to be used at all except in a test
I''ve made tzinfo a dev dependency on master and 3-1-stable.
> The short version is that ActionDispatch and ActionController use a lot of
> the dependencies, but ActionView does not.
> 
> I would like to propose that we break out ActionView into its own gem with
> only a few dependencies, and make ActionPack depend on it.
I think it''s fine.  Please do it (on master)?

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

Rails core - Jul 2011 - PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

Re: PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

Re: PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView

Re: PROPOSAL: Regarding ActionPack Dependencies and ActionView