Rails core - Oct 2007 - custom inflections, RESTful route path helpers, and Rails 2.0

Those of us that need to use custom inflections with RESTful route path
helpers know that routes get loaded before custom inflections get set in
the environment ( http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6829 ). However,
we''ve had a simple workaround for this by forcing the routes to reload
in the environment.rb, after we define our inflections...

Inflector.inflections do |inflect|
   inflect.irregular ''cave'', ''caves''
end
ActionController::Routing::Routes.reload

and life was good again... until Rails 2.0PR

Revision [7369] ( http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/7369 )
specifically prevents the reloading of the routes if they have already
been loaded. So, life sucks again. The patch provides a new reload!
method (with an !) that forces the reload, so updating the
environment.rb to

ActionController::Routing::Routes.reload!

gets around it... but anybody else trying to upgrade to 2.0 that is
using custom inflections with RESTful route path helpers is going to
need to hunt down this thread and make that change themselves, or figure
it out on their own (after previously needing to figure out the need to
reload routes in the first place).

[7369] doesn''t include any tests showing that it fixes anything (I
thought that was one of the new rules!? ;-) ), nor do the comments with
the revision give any hints to it''s purpose or ticket it closes.
I''m not
seeing the benefit and it''s definitely going to introduce unnecessary
headaches for a fraction of the Rails community. So, I''m curious what
this change was for, and if it''s actually helping anybody.

Doesn''t "reload", by it''s very name imply that the
user knows that the
routes are already loaded, but they want to "REload" them anyway? 
''reload!'' seems redundant to me.  Before [7369] it was just
''load!'' and
it''s alias ''reload''.  Instead of changing the
functionality of ''reload''
and adding a ''reload!'' method, how about a separate method (
unfortunately ''load'' is already used by Ruby ) that provides
the new
"only load if not already loaded" functionality and let
''reload''
continue to be an alias of ''load!''

Ultimately I''d like to see the need for the first workaround completely
go away, but that may be easier said than done, and I''m not sure that
ticket #6829 (linked above) provides the best solution.

-- 
http://www.5valleys.com/
http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/8078


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

>  [7369] doesn''t include any tests showing that it fixes anything
(I thought
> that was one of the new rules!? ;-) ), nor do the comments with the
revision
> give any hints to it''s purpose or ticket it closes. I''m
not seeing the
> benefit and it''s definitely going to introduce unnecessary
headaches for a
> fraction of the Rails community. So, I''m curious what this change
was for,
> and if it''s actually helping anybody.
It''s a siginificant performance improvement in development mode,
I''ve
noticed it and I''m hugely happy with it :).  reload isn''t a
documented
part of the API so I don''t think it''s that big a deal.  
reload could
be named something like
reload_unless_routes_dot_rb_hasnt_been_changed, but I don''t think
that''s justified.

A one character change for those painting outside the lines doesn''t
seem like it''s too much to worry about.  Besides,  couldn''t
you just
put the inflections *above* the initializer block?
-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Michael Koziarski wrote:
>>  [7369] doesn''t include any tests showing that it fixes
anything (I thought
>> that was one of the new rules!? ;-) ), nor do the comments with the
revision
>> give any hints to it''s purpose or ticket it closes.
I''m not seeing the
>> benefit and it''s definitely going to introduce unnecessary
headaches for a
>> fraction of the Rails community. So, I''m curious what this
change was for,
>> and if it''s actually helping anybody.
>>     
>
> It''s a siginificant performance improvement in development mode,
I''ve
> noticed it and I''m hugely happy with it :). 
That''s good to hear.
>  reload isn''t a documented
> part of the API so I don''t think it''s that big a deal.  
reload could
> be named something like
> reload_unless_routes_dot_rb_hasnt_been_changed, but I don''t think
> that''s justified.
>   
No, I agree.
> A one character change for those painting outside the lines
doesn''t
> seem like it''s too much to worry about. 
I don''t know that I would label those who write their application in
languages other than English as "painting outside the lines" ;-)  Nor
simply needing things like a waves_controller, and wanting to be able to
call wave_path(1), instead of "wafe_path(1)"
>  Besides,  couldn''t you just
> put the inflections *above* the initializer block?
>   
That would be a fantastic solution if it worked, except it results in...

"uninitialized constant Inflector"

Any solution that managed to setup the custom inflections before the
routes would make me very happy (and I''d be very willing to work on the
patch once pointed in the right direction).  Other ideas?

-- 
http://www.5valleys.com/
http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/8078


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 think we need a real fix for the issue.  Requiring inflections to be done
about the initializer block is no better than requiring some internal method
call.  Either way, the developer will have to analyze the issue then find
the work-around.
I would support some kind of mechanism where the inflector itself is
responsible for reloading routes if it is modified.  It''s a little
ugly, but
if we throw a test in there it makes a huge potential headache go away.

On 10/5/07, Jon Garvin <jgarvin.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>  Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
>   [7369] doesn''t include any tests showing that it fixes anything
(I thought
> that was one of the new rules!? ;-) ), nor do the comments with the
revision
> give any hints to it''s purpose or ticket it closes. I''m
not seeing the
> benefit and it''s definitely going to introduce unnecessary
headaches for a
> fraction of the Rails community. So, I''m curious what this change
was for,
> and if it''s actually helping anybody.
>
>
>  It''s a siginificant performance improvement in development mode,
I''ve
> noticed it and I''m hugely happy with it :).
>
>  That''s good to hear.
>
>  reload isn''t a documented
> part of the API so I don''t think it''s that big a deal.  
reload could
> be named something like
> reload_unless_routes_dot_rb_hasnt_been_changed, but I don''t think
> that''s justified.
>
>
>  No, I agree.
>
> A one character change for those painting outside the lines
doesn''t
> seem like it''s too much to worry about.
>
>  I don''t know that I would label those who write their application
in
> languages other than English as "painting outside the lines" ;-) 
Nor simply
> needing things like a waves_controller, and wanting to be able to call
> wave_path(1), instead of "wafe_path(1)"
>
>   Besides,  couldn''t you just
> put the inflections *above* the initializer block?
>
>
>  That would be a fantastic solution if it worked, except it results in...
>
> "uninitialized constant Inflector"
>
> Any solution that managed to setup the custom inflections before the
> routes would make me very happy (and I''d be very willing to work
on the
> patch once pointed in the right direction).  Other ideas?
>
> -- http://www.5valleys.com/http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/8078
>
>
> >
>

-- 
Gabe da Silveira
http://darwinweb.net

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 think we need a real fix for the issue.  Requiring inflections to be done
> about the initializer block is no better than requiring some internal
method
> call.  Either way, the developer will have to analyze the issue then find
> the work-around.
Yeah, the issue does need to be fixed.
> I would support some kind of mechanism where the inflector itself is
> responsible for reloading routes if it is modified.  It''s a little
ugly, but
> if we throw a test in there it makes a huge potential headache go away.
That''s a pretty ugly solution, but if it''s all that can be
done then
so be it.

> On 10/5/07, Jon Garvin <jgarvin.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Koziarski wrote:
> >
> > [7369] doesn''t include any tests showing that it fixes
anything (I thought
> > that was one of the new rules!? ;-) ), nor do the comments with the
> revision
> > give any hints to it''s purpose or ticket it closes.
I''m not seeing the
> > benefit and it''s definitely going to introduce unnecessary
headaches for a
> > fraction of the Rails community. So, I''m curious what this
change was for,
> > and if it''s actually helping anybody.
> >
> > It''s a siginificant performance improvement in development
mode, I''ve
> > noticed it and I''m hugely happy with it :).
> > That''s good to hear.
> >
> > reload isn''t a documented
> > part of the API so I don''t think it''s that big a
deal. reload could
> > be named something like
> > reload_unless_routes_dot_rb_hasnt_been_changed, but I
> don''t think
> > that''s justified.
> >
> > No, I agree.
> >
> > A one character change for those painting outside the lines
doesn''t
> > seem like it''s too much to worry about.
> > I don''t know that I would label those who write their
application in
> languages other than English as "painting outside the lines" ;-) 
Nor simply
> needing things like a waves_controller, and wanting to be able to call
> wave_path(1), instead of "wafe_path(1)"
> >
> >
> > Besides, couldn''t you just
> > put the inflections *above* the initializer block?
> >
> > That would be a fantastic solution if it worked, except it results
in...
> >
> > "uninitialized constant Inflector"
> >
> > Any solution that managed to setup the custom inflections before the
> routes would make me very happy (and I''d be very willing to work
on the
> patch once pointed in the right direction).  Other ideas?
> >
> > --
> > http://www.5valleys.com/
> > http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/8078
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gabe da Silveira
> http://darwinweb.net
>
>  >
>

-- 
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 10/8/07, Michael Koziarski <michael@koziarski.com>
wrote:
>
>
> > I would support some kind of mechanism where the inflector itself is
> > responsible for reloading routes if it is modified.  It''s a
little ugly,
> but
> > if we throw a test in there it makes a huge potential headache go
away.
>
> That''s a pretty ugly solution, but if it''s all that can
be done then
> so be it.

I have taken a shot: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/9815

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 have taken a shot: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/9815
Nice work, applied.

Jon and Gabe,  does it fix things for you?

-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---