Rails core - Oct 2008 - map.resources with :only/:except (revisited)

Hi,

I''ve opened a LH ticket with a new implementation of :only/:except for
map.resources, and an explanation of why this is an important feature
for Rails:

  http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/1215

I realise that this feature has been rejected before (http://
dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/9460), but it''s time for another shot. The
shortest, most pragmatic justification is that large route files eat a
remarkable amount of RAM (probably both Ruby objects and AST nodes),
so even though Rails already gracefully handles useless routes, it''s
still a good idea to be able to prevent them from being generated in
the first place. It''s a shame to have to fall back to longhand named
routes -- map.resources provides a nice way of structuring a readable
routes.rb, so a bit of backwards-compatible flexibility seems like a
good thing.

I can provide some real memory consumption numbers if they''d make a
difference. I hope that the other issues described in the ticket
(granularity and documentation) are convincing too.

Can anyone provide any feedback on the ticket? Is there any chance of
this going in? It''s pretty critical for memory performance on a couple
of apps I''m working on.

Cheers,
-Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 can provide some real memory consumption numbers if they''d make
a
> difference. I hope that the other issues described in the ticket
> (granularity and documentation) are convincing too.
>
> Can anyone provide any feedback on the ticket? Is there any chance of
> this going in? It''s pretty critical for memory performance on a
couple
> of apps I''m working on.
As koz noted in the ticket, I''d love to see some memory stats on this.
That seems to be the real issue here. I''d preferably like us to work
on cutting down on the memory needed, but if we can''t, then this could
be a reasonable argument for the addition.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---