Merb devel - Sep 2007 - Official Plugins - What should they be

There''s been a lot of discussion on the #merb channel lately about
official plugins.

I''m starting this thread and hoping to get some discussion as to what
these official plugins should be, at least in the lead-up to revision
1.0

So far as I have seen on the #merb these are:

ORM''s
merb_active_record
merb_sequel
merb_datamapper

and
merb_form_controls - there is a ticket for this one on trac

As I understand it, these would be hosted on the merb track so that only
merb commiters can update them, hence they remain official.

Also I think the idea of some kind of merb_autorization would not be out of
place.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/merb-devel/attachments/20070905/df620344/attachment-0001.html

Forwarded to list

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Luke Sutton <luke.sutton at gmail.com>
Date: Sep 5, 2007 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Official Plugins - What should they be
To: Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com>
> and
> merb_form_controls - there is a ticket for this one on trac
Aren''t some of form controls ORM specific?

Perhaps the form controls plugin could form some base that the ORM
specific plugins then build on top of?
> As I understand it, these would be hosted on the merb track so that
> only merb commiters can update them, hence they remain official.
>
> Also I think the idea of some kind of merb_autorization would not
> be out of place.
I think that anything that generates HTML should go into a plugin as
well. I''ve heard some people say they want to use merb as a REST
server etc, in which case they don''t need them.

--
Luke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/merb-devel/attachments/20070905/e0742923/attachment.html