Distinguished Ladies and Gents, I was experiencing some odd behaviour with my app so I decided to make a simple test to iron it out; I found that it is utterly impossible for there to be a model in the top namespace by the same name as another model in another different namespace. Now, I know modules and namespaces aren''t something the Rails Core puts way up there on the list of priorities, or even if it is on the list, or any other list, at all, but it would be nice to know if namespaced models at all is something the Core _wants_ to work in Rails, or not. So, if you please.. models in namespaces/models; I know you guys don''t use them much but some of us do, are they Teh Unwanted? Very best regards, Tomas Jogin, devoted Rails developer and fan PS. My test to prove this problem, if anyone is interested: 1. create a new rails app. 2. generate a model called "Whatever" 3. generate a model called "Other::Whatever" 4. run script/console, type: Whatever and find that you get: "NameError: uninitialized constant Whatever" 5. type Other::Whatever and find that it works. 6. Delete Other::Whatever, run script/console again, and find that now the Whatever model magically exists again; it would seem loading Other::Whatever unloads Whatever, or prevents it from loading, or something. 7. Please note that Other::Whatever and YetAnother::Whatever plays nice together, but not with Whatever. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> My test to prove this problem, if anyone is interested: > 1. create a new rails app. > 2. generate a model called "Whatever" > 3. generate a model called "Other::Whatever" > 4. run script/console, type: Whatever and find that you get: > "NameError: uninitialized constant Whatever" > 5. type Other::Whatever and find that it works. > 6. Delete Other::Whatever, run script/console again, and find that now > the Whatever model magically exists again; it would seem loading > Other::Whatever unloads Whatever, or prevents it from loading, or > something. > 7. Please note that Other::Whatever and YetAnother::Whatever plays > nice together, but not with Whatever.This is definitely a bug, create a ticket at dev.rubyonrails.org and perhaps it can be fixed for 1.2, with trunk I see the following:>> WhateverLoadError: Expected script/../config/../config/../app/models/other/whatever.rb to define Whatever from ./script/../config/../config/../vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/../../activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:226:in `load_missing_constant'' from ./script/../config/../config/../vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/../../activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:321:in `const_missing'' from ./script/../config/../config/../vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/../../activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:328:in `const_missing'' from (irb):1 Which is wrong. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 5 Sep 2006, at 11:15 , Tomas Jogin wrote:> I was experiencing some odd behaviour with my app so I decided to > make a simple test to iron it out; I found that it is utterly > impossible for there to be a model in the top namespace by the same > name as another model in another different namespace.This has been an issue for a long time. My advice would be: Don''t Do That or even better Don''t Use Modules. Thijs. -- Fingertips - http://www.fngtps.com Phone: +31 (0)6 24204845 Skype: tvandervossen MSN Messenger: thijs@fngtps.com iChat/AOL: t.vandervossen@mac.com Jabber IM: thijs@jabber.org
Modules are a very useful tool for organising and namespacing your code. This can be crucial on a large application. Simply saying "don''t use modules" because the loading of code in modules is broken isn''t really useful advice. Cheers Luke On 5 Sep 2006, at 11:12, Thijs van der Vossen wrote:> On 5 Sep 2006, at 11:15 , Tomas Jogin wrote: >> I was experiencing some odd behaviour with my app so I decided to >> make a simple test to iron it out; I found that it is utterly >> impossible for there to be a model in the top namespace by the >> same name as another model in another different namespace. > > This has been an issue for a long time. My advice would be: Don''t > Do That or even better Don''t Use Modules. > > Thijs. > > -- > Fingertips - http://www.fngtps.com > > Phone: +31 (0)6 24204845 > Skype: tvandervossen > > MSN Messenger: thijs@fngtps.com > iChat/AOL: t.vandervossen@mac.com > Jabber IM: thijs@jabber.org > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thanks, but, really, that''s not advice at all. Advice would be to offer a different solution to contextual and/or same-named identifiers, compartmentalized features, functionality and so forth -- the very problem that the use of namespaces solves. Furthermore, namespaces, unlike the goto-statement and similar things you "shouldn''t do" in programming, aren''t thought of as "harmful" practices in general. It''s just within Rails that namespaces are frowned upon, and, IMHO, for no good reason (the only semi-logical reason I can find is: "we can''t seem to get ''em right"). Note that I''m NOT casting any blame here, nor expecting any favors or service; I''m just rejecting the IMHO baseless proposition to "not use" modules in favor of, well... in favor of nothing else. Namespaces aren''t evil, not at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using namespaces in general. It''s too bad that they just don''t work very well in Rails (but much better now than previously, of course). Best regards, Tomas Jogin On 9/5/06, Thijs van der Vossen <t.vandervossen@gmail.com> wrote:> On 5 Sep 2006, at 11:15 , Tomas Jogin wrote: > > I was experiencing some odd behaviour with my app so I decided to > > make a simple test to iron it out; I found that it is utterly > > impossible for there to be a model in the top namespace by the same > > name as another model in another different namespace. > > This has been an issue for a long time. My advice would be: Don''t Do > That or even better Don''t Use Modules. > > Thijs. > > -- > Fingertips - http://www.fngtps.com > > Phone: +31 (0)6 24204845 > Skype: tvandervossen > > MSN Messenger: thijs@fngtps.com > iChat/AOL: t.vandervossen@mac.com > Jabber IM: thijs@jabber.org > > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thanks, ticket created: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6031 On 9/5/06, Michael Koziarski <michael@koziarski.com> wrote:> > > My test to prove this problem, if anyone is interested: > > 1. create a new rails app. > > 2. generate a model called "Whatever" > > 3. generate a model called "Other::Whatever" > > 4. run script/console, type: Whatever and find that you get: > > "NameError: uninitialized constant Whatever" > > 5. type Other::Whatever and find that it works. > > 6. Delete Other::Whatever, run script/console again, and find that now > > the Whatever model magically exists again; it would seem loading > > Other::Whatever unloads Whatever, or prevents it from loading, or > > something. > > 7. Please note that Other::Whatever and YetAnother::Whatever plays > > nice together, but not with Whatever. > > This is definitely a bug, create a ticket at dev.rubyonrails.org and > perhaps it can be fixed for 1.2, with trunk I see the following: > > >> Whatever > LoadError: Expected > script/../config/../config/../app/models/other/whatever.rb to define > Whatever > from ./script/../config/../config/../vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/../../activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:226:in > `load_missing_constant'' > from ./script/../config/../config/../vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/../../activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:321:in > `const_missing'' > from ./script/../config/../config/../vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/../../activesupport/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:328:in > `const_missing'' > from (irb):1 > > Which is wrong. > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 9/5/06, Tomas Jogin <tomasj@gmail.com> wrote:> > > Furthermore, namespaces, unlike the goto-statement and similar things > you "shouldn''t do" in programming, aren''t thought of as "harmful" > practices in general. It''s just within Rails that namespaces are > frowned upon, and, IMHO, for no good reason (the only semi-logical > reason I can find is: "we can''t seem to get ''em right").Hear hear. Rails itself is heavily namespaced, so it should be wrong to discourage namespaces in user apps. Whatever and Other::Whatever are a great feature of Ruby and shouldn''t kill each other in Rails. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> It''s just within Rails that namespaces are > frowned upon, and, IMHO, for no good reason (the only semi-logical > reason I can find is: "we can''t seem to get ''em right"). Note that I''m > NOT casting any blame here, nor expecting any favors or service; I''m > just rejecting the IMHO baseless proposition to "not use" modules in > favor of, well... in favor of nothing else.Who says its frowned upon? Michael (core) says that the original report sounds like a bug and asks for a ticket. Thjis (user/contributor) says that he has had problems with modules in the past and are now avoiding them. Neither represent a "Modules Considered Harmful" argument. The notion that "we can''t seem to get ''em right" does bug me, though. It''s another sign of vendoritis and certainly an implicit form of blame. The simple fact is that most core developers just don''t need modules, so they are not being worked on unless quality bug reports come in. And even then, they''re probably just going to be fixed to the best of that report. Instead, it''d be great if people who actually needs/wants modules in their applications got a "Friends of Modules" group together, pulled up their sleeves, and started programming to make them solid. This is a commons and we''re eager to see your contributions in the core. I see no good reason why modules shouldn''t work perfectly, except that "the people who care haven''t done the work". Make it happen! ;) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 5 Sep 2006, at 12:58 , Tomas Jogin wrote:> Thanks, but, really, that''s not advice at all. Advice would be to > offer a different solution to contextual and/or same-named > identifiers, compartmentalized features, functionality and so forth > -- the very problem that the use of namespaces solves. > > Furthermore, namespaces, unlike the goto-statement and similar > things you "shouldn''t do" in programming, aren''t thought of as > "harmful" practices in general. It''s just within Rails that > namespaces are frowned upon, and, IMHO, for no good reason (the > only semi-logical reason I can find is: "we can''t seem to get ''em > right"). Note that I''m NOT casting any blame here, nor expecting > any favors or service; I''m just rejecting the IMHO baseless > proposition to "not use" modules in > favor of, well... in favor of nothing else. > > Namespaces aren''t evil, not at all. There is absolutely nothing > wrong with using namespaces in general. It''s too bad that they just > don''t work very well in Rails (but much better now than previously, > of course).I''m not saying anything is evil or harmful at all. I''ve been bitten by module namespace issues in the past and trust me, it''s a pain to debug. I''m just telling you from experience that you might want to consider not using modules if you don''t absolutely have to. That _is_ advice in my opinion. If you really need modules and you have the time, why not fix the module namespace issue and submit a patch? I''m sure you''ll get this accepted in no time. Kind regards, Thijs -- Fingertips - http://www.fngtps.com Phone: +31 (0)6 24204845 Skype: tvandervossen MSN Messenger: thijs@fngtps.com iChat/AOL: t.vandervossen@mac.com Jabber IM: thijs@jabber.org
Just wanted to clarify that I''m certainly not expecting any kind of vendor-like treatment, by "we" (as in "we can''t seem to get ''em right") I meant the Rails community as a whole, not the core or anything like that; and further, that this was not an assignment of blame, but a rather poor excuse to stay away from namespaces. (As if anyone would avoid use of unicode or i18n just because it''s lacking a bit in the implementation?) I have gotten the impression that namespaced controllers and models are kind of frowned upon within the Rails community as a whole, I guess I projected some of that impression onto Thjis comment. I''d love to fix the namespace issues myself, but sadly my Ruby-fu isn''t quite up for that kind of challenge. Ruby is a very powerful language, but that power translates into magic which in turn translates into confusion. Well, to me it does, at least, and certainly when it comes to dabbling with other people''s code. Guess it wouldn''t hurt to take a look though. Best regards, and thank you, Tomas Jogin On 9/5/06, DHH <david.heinemeier@gmail.com> wrote:> > > It''s just within Rails that namespaces are > > frowned upon, and, IMHO, for no good reason (the only semi-logical > > reason I can find is: "we can''t seem to get ''em right"). Note that I''m > > NOT casting any blame here, nor expecting any favors or service; I''m > > just rejecting the IMHO baseless proposition to "not use" modules in > > favor of, well... in favor of nothing else. > > Who says its frowned upon? Michael (core) says that the original report > sounds like a bug and asks for a ticket. Thjis (user/contributor) says > that he has had problems with modules in the past and are now avoiding > them. Neither represent a "Modules Considered Harmful" argument. > > The notion that "we can''t seem to get ''em right" does bug me, though. > It''s another sign of vendoritis and certainly an implicit form of > blame. The simple fact is that most core developers just don''t need > modules, so they are not being worked on unless quality bug reports > come in. And even then, they''re probably just going to be fixed to the > best of that report. > > Instead, it''d be great if people who actually needs/wants modules in > their applications got a "Friends of Modules" group together, pulled up > their sleeves, and started programming to make them solid. This is a > commons and we''re eager to see your contributions in the core. I see no > good reason why modules shouldn''t work perfectly, except that "the > people who care haven''t done the work". > > Make it happen! ;) > > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---