Re: plugin dependencies

Aaron Pfeifer
Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:52:43 -0000

That "70 plugins" somebody was me and I guess I was an outlier back
then :)  Probably still am ;)

On Sep 19, 11:28 am, Jay Levitt <jay+n...@jay.fm>
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:03:09 +0200, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> > We''re still pretty skeptical about plugin dependencies on the
whole.
> > Plugins monkeypatching plugins seems like a bit of a recipe for
> > disaster.  However we could do something easy like:
>
> > config.plugins = [:gems, :some_kind_of_thing, :all]
>
> > So you specify the key things at the beginning of the array, then just
> > use :all to mean ''then everything else in alphabetical
order''.
>
> That still means that plugins aren''t really plug-in anymore.  If I
use a
> plugin that needs acts_as_list at initialization, and that plugin happens
> to be named "aardvark" instead of "zebra",
I''ll have to go manually add
> acts_as_list to the beginning of config.plugins?  Why not just manually
> copy the plugin code into lib/ as well?
>
> I understand the core team''s traditional reluctance to add plugin
> dependencies, for both complexity and YAGNI reasons.  I remember a ticket a
> while back where somebody said "But if I have 70 plugins, it becomes a
> pain", and DHH rightly responded "You don''t need 70
plugins".
>
> But with the move towards pushing more and more core functionality into
> plugins, it really should be revisited - if only to be re-argued in the
> present tense.  I''m working on a relatively small app on Edge that
already
> uses a dozen plugins, and we''ve just gotten started.  I
don''t think that''s
> going to be uncommon.
>
> --
> Jay Levitt                |
> Boston, MA                | My character doesn''t like it when they
> Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.http://www.jay.fm        |
- Kristoffer