Re: Confusing dependencies

matthewrudyjacobs@gmail.com
Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:36:16 -0000

good point,
thanks.

So it does work!
BOOM.

On Aug 1, 2:52 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <mich...@koziarski.com>
wrote:
> Thats because you have active record mentioned in one of the initializers:
>
>   from /Users/matthew/code/nodb/config/initializers/new_rails_defaults.rb:5
>
> Just comment it out / remove it from there.
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM, matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> <matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://gist.github.com/3594
>
> > On Aug 1, 9:30 am, "matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com"
> > <matthewrudyjac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I just tried it with 2.1.0
>
> >> uncommented the line;
> >> config.frameworks -> >> [ :active_record,
:active_resource, :action_mailer ]
>
> >> and nothing works unfortunately.
>
> >> I imagine it does work sometimes,
> >> but given there''s no test on the functionality...
>
> >> On Jul 31, 10:47 am, Frederick Cheung
<frederick.che...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On 26 Jul 2008, at 11:24, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
> >> > >> Now I wondered if these depenencies are intended (to
keep complexety
> >> > >> as low as possible), and -- if not --, whether
there''re plans for
> >> > >> rather autonomous frameworks.
>
> >> > > We certainly expect you to be able to turn off the
frameworks where
> >> > > that makes sense.  If it''s as simple as a few
missing requires for
> >> > > things like erb then we can definitely take patches to
fix that.
>
> >> > > Making them completely autonomous isn''t a high
priority goal for most
> >> > > people, but there''s no reason to make it
impossible to turn AR off for
> >> > > example.
>
> >> > This does work (or at least used to), I''ve got a
2.0.2 app around
> >> > somewhere that doesn''t use ActiveRecord (and it was
as simple as using
> >> > config.frameworks)
>
> >> > Fred
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Koz