thr3ads.net - Rails - Simply Helpful - Is it being used? [Mar 2007]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

yitzhakbg

2007-Mar-11 18:58 UTC

Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

There is a reference in "Agile Web Development with Rails", 2nd
edition (footnote on page 483) to the effect that "Simply Helpful",
which is to facilitate integration of models, REST and form_for, will
likely end up in core Rails.
However, I have seen woefully little reaction to it and I was
wondering if it is worth using in my new application.
Any advice would be warmly appreciated.
Thanks


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Michael Schuerig

2007-Mar-11 19:38 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On Sunday 11 March 2007, yitzhakbg wrote:> There is a reference in "Agile Web Development with Rails", 2nd
> edition (footnote on page 483) to the effect that "Simply
Helpful",
> which is to facilitate integration of models, REST and form_for, will
> likely end up in core Rails.
> However, I have seen woefully little reaction to it and I was
> wondering if it is worth using in my new application.
> Any advice would be warmly appreciated.
Yes, use it. I don''t see any drawback. In recent versions there is a
new
way to create URLs for objects that is very helpful if you''re 
generically working with resources, namely polymorphic_url(@object).

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

patrick.henry.ewing-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org

2007-Mar-11 20:08 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

> > However, I have seen woefully little reaction to it and I was
> > wondering if it is worth using in my new application.
I use it on every project now, it really feels like part of Rails.
The url helpers, and methods like dom_id and dom_class DRY up your
views a lot and make AJAX effects simpler to employ, as you get a set
of conventions for referencing DOM elements.

-Patrick Ewing


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

yitzhakbg

2007-Mar-11 21:31 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Thanks very much

On Mar 11, 9:38 pm, Michael Schuerig
<mich...-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> On Sunday 11 March 2007, yitzhakbg wrote:
>
> > There is a reference in "Agile Web Development with Rails",
2nd
> > edition (footnote on page 483) to the effect that "Simply
Helpful",
> > which is to facilitate integration of models, REST and form_for, will
> > likely end up in core Rails.
> > However, I have seen woefully little reaction to it and I was
> > wondering if it is worth using in my new application.
> > Any advice would be warmly appreciated.
>
> Yes, use it. I don''t see any drawback. In recent versions there is
a new
> way to create URLs for objects that is very helpful if you''re
> generically working with resources, namely polymorphic_url(@object).
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Schuerig
>
mailto:mich...-q5aiKMLteq5BV9CJdY2HSA@public.gmane.org://www.schuerig.de/michael/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

yitzhakbg

2007-Mar-11 21:35 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Is there a tutorial?

On Mar 11, 9:38 pm, Michael Schuerig
<mich...-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> On Sunday 11 March 2007, yitzhakbg wrote:
>
> > There is a reference in "Agile Web Development with Rails",
2nd
> > edition (footnote on page 483) to the effect that "Simply
Helpful",
> > which is to facilitate integration of models, REST and form_for, will
> > likely end up in core Rails.
> > However, I have seen woefully little reaction to it and I was
> > wondering if it is worth using in my new application.
> > Any advice would be warmly appreciated.
>
> Yes, use it. I don''t see any drawback. In recent versions there is
a new
> way to create URLs for objects that is very helpful if you''re
> generically working with resources, namely polymorphic_url(@object).
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Schuerig
>
mailto:mich...-q5aiKMLteq5BV9CJdY2HSA@public.gmane.org://www.schuerig.de/michael/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Nicolas Cavigneaux

2007-Mar-12 10:23 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Le 11 mars 07 à 20:38, Michael Schuerig a écrit :
> Yes, use it. I don''t see any drawback.
It doesn''t handle nested resources :(
-- 
Nicolas Cavigneaux
http://www.bounga.org
http://www.cavigneaux.net



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Bala Paranj

2007-Mar-12 14:25 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Here is my experience with it: I developed on application with Rails
1.2.2without Simply_Helper plugin. I wrote lot of tests and once my
application
was ready to be released I refactored my code to use Simply Helpful plugin.
All my tests passed (unit, functional, integration and Selenium) and I was
confident that what I was doing was working.

Suddenly for some reason when I installed some plugin the tests began to
fail due to Simply Helpful. I removed the simply helpful tags and everything
now works fine. I still have not found out what went wrong with the Simply
Helpful when other plugins are installed.

On 3/11/07, yitzhakbg <yitzhakbg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
>
> There is a reference in "Agile Web Development with Rails", 2nd
> edition (footnote on page 483) to the effect that "Simply
Helpful",
> which is to facilitate integration of models, REST and form_for, will
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

David A. Black

2007-Mar-12 14:54 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Hi --

On 3/11/07, yitzhakbg <yitzhakbg-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> There is a reference in "Agile Web Development with Rails", 2nd
> edition (footnote on page 483) to the effect that "Simply
Helpful",
> which is to facilitate integration of models, REST and form_for, will
> likely end up in core Rails.
> However, I have seen woefully little reaction to it and I was
> wondering if it is worth using in my new application.
I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
idiom:

  def new
     @user = User.new
  end

where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new object.[1]  But
don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this :-)  And the
general
idea of integrating stuff and making it less repetitive I think is
very sound, of course.


David

[1]
http://dablog.rubypal.com/2006/12/23/more-a-than-r-reconsidering-the-new-ar-object

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Bala Paranj

2007-Mar-12 15:20 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

I wondered why new had that line of code. I commented out the line that
creates an empty object in the new method. Still all my tests pass and
everything seems fine. So what would the test look like for new method that
creates the object that is discarded?

On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
>
>
> I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
> block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
> idiom:
>
>   def new
>      @user = User.new
>   end
>
> where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
> purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new object.[1] 
But
> don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this :-)  And
the general
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jeremy Kemper

2007-Mar-12 15:39 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
> block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
> idiom:
>
>   def new
>      @user = User.new
>   end
>
> where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
> purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new object.[1] 
But
> don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this :-)  And
the general
> idea of integrating stuff and making it less repetitive I think is
> very sound, of course.
I''m not sure why you dislike it. The solution you propose in the blog
entry (User.proto) is essentially what User.new provides: a
prototypical, blank-slate user.

There''s nothing overkill about this. A new User is no more or less
than what''s needed to show a new user.

I think that whether you use a singleton or a new instance per request
should be a question of implementation rather than idiom.

Best,
jeremy

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

David A. Black

2007-Mar-12 15:54 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Hi --

On 3/12/07, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy-w7CzD/W5Ocjk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
> > block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
> > idiom:
> >
> >   def new
> >      @user = User.new
> >   end
> >
> > where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
> > purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new
object.[1]  But
> > don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this :-) 
And the general
> > idea of integrating stuff and making it less repetitive I think is
> > very sound, of course.
>
> I''m not sure why you dislike it. The solution you propose in the
blog
> entry (User.proto) is essentially what User.new provides: a
> prototypical, blank-slate user.
>
> There''s nothing overkill about this. A new User is no more or less
> than what''s needed to show a new user.
>
> I think that whether you use a singleton or a new instance per request
> should be a question of implementation rather than idiom.
Maybe.  I don''t have a slam-dunk technical argument against it; it
just strikes me as kind of loose, in the sense that, although
AR::B.new does not create a database record, the whole apparatus
exists as a way to persist instances to a database, so deciding up
front to create an instance that has zero chance of being persisted
seems to me contrary to the semantic thrust of the system.

As I said, I''m in the minority :-)  I understand the reasoning behind
it, and I imagine I''ll get used to seeing it, but it doesn''t
sit well
with me.  I''d actually say it''s more an idiom thing than an
implementation thing: even if proto (or some other better name) were
an alias of new, it would be more expressive of the status of this
particular instance as a kind of dead-end/stand-in object of
reference.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jodi Showers

2007-Mar-12 16:04 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On 12-Mar-07, at 11:54 AM, David A. Black wrote:
>
> Hi --
>
> On 3/12/07, Jeremy Kemper
<jeremy-w7CzD/W5Ocjk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a
stumbling
>>> block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
>>> idiom:
>>>
>>>   def new
>>>      @user = User.new
>>>   end
>>>
>>> where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
>>> purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new
object.
>>> [1]  But
>>> don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this
:-)  And the general
>>> idea of integrating stuff and making it less repetitive I think is
>>> very sound, of course.
>>
>> I''m not sure why you dislike it. The solution you propose in
the blog
>> entry (User.proto) is essentially what User.new provides: a
>> prototypical, blank-slate user.
>>
>> There''s nothing overkill about this. A new User is no more or
less
>> than what''s needed to show a new user.
>>
>> I think that whether you use a singleton or a new instance per  
>> request
>> should be a question of implementation rather than idiom.
>
> Maybe.  I don''t have a slam-dunk technical argument against it; it
> just strikes me as kind of loose, in the sense that, although
> AR::B.new does not create a database record, the whole apparatus
> exists as a way to persist instances to a database, so deciding up
> front to create an instance that has zero chance of being persisted
> seems to me contrary to the semantic thrust of the system.
>
> As I said, I''m in the minority :-)  I understand the reasoning
behind
> it, and I imagine I''ll get used to seeing it, but it
doesn''t sit well
> with me.  I''d actually say it''s more an idiom thing than
an
> implementation thing: even if proto (or some other better name) were
> an alias of new, it would be more expressive of the status of this
> particular instance as a kind of dead-end/stand-in object of
> reference.
>
>
> David

David, I tend to agree - it strikes me my disturbance lies in the  
tightly coupling of the ''Model to AR.

If rails models were independent of storage, then Model.new would sit  
better with me.

Given the above, it is not implementation - but a symptom of the  
current Model implementation as ActiveRecord. I''ll bet dollars to  
donuts that we''ll see a separation down the road.

The Model as means storage rears it''s head in my tests as well - I  
want to test my Models - not AR; and mocking AR is not a solution  
that sits right with me.

cheers,
Jodi


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jeremy Kemper

2007-Mar-12 16:54 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> Maybe.  I don''t have a slam-dunk technical argument against it; it
> just strikes me as kind of loose, in the sense that, although
> AR::B.new does not create a database record, the whole apparatus
> exists as a way to persist instances to a database, so deciding up
> front to create an instance that has zero chance of being persisted
> seems to me contrary to the semantic thrust of the system.
Ah, but it does. The create action has the corresponding
  user.attributes = params[:user]
  user.save

So imagine we''re Seaside: the new and create actions just happen to be
punctuated by a request+response:
  GET /users/new   user = User.new
  POST /users      user.update_attributes params[:user]

Regarding User''s narrow persistence destiny, I heartily disagree! User
models a real entity in the problem domain-- its characteristics and
behavior-- and Active Record is used to persist it, not the other way
around.

> As I said, I''m in the minority :-)  I understand the reasoning
behind
> it, and I imagine I''ll get used to seeing it, but it
doesn''t sit well
> with me.  I''d actually say it''s more an idiom thing than
an
> implementation thing: even if proto (or some other better name) were
> an alias of new, it would be more expressive of the status of this
> particular instance as a kind of dead-end/stand-in object of
> reference.
I hope I''ve persuaded you ;-)  Seen in another light, there is no dead
end or special status for this instance.

Best,
jeremy

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

David A. Black

2007-Mar-12 17:18 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Hi --

On 3/12/07, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy-w7CzD/W5Ocjk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Maybe.  I don''t have a slam-dunk technical argument against
it; it
> > just strikes me as kind of loose, in the sense that, although
> > AR::B.new does not create a database record, the whole apparatus
> > exists as a way to persist instances to a database, so deciding up
> > front to create an instance that has zero chance of being persisted
> > seems to me contrary to the semantic thrust of the system.
>
> Ah, but it does. The create action has the corresponding
>   user.attributes = params[:user]
>   user.save
But that user isn''t the same instance as the @user from the new
action. Somewhere in create you instantiate User again.
> So imagine we''re Seaside: the new and create actions just happen
to be
> punctuated by a request+response:
>   GET /users/new   user = User.new
>   POST /users      user.update_attributes params[:user]
OK... but we''re not :-)  The separation, and the need to instantiate
the class twice, are very palpable to me in the Rails scenario.  If
the semantics were as above, then the situation might be different;
but it''s hard to project that into the current semantics.

In fact, that might be exactly what bothers me about it. The idea is
that you have a new instance, and someone fills out some fields for
it, and you save it -- but that idea is very much *not* manifested in
the actual code.

Take, by way of comparison and contrast, the instance variable sharing
between controller and view. That''s a case where the sameness of the
objects (@var and @var) is a deception -- but it''s you, the
programmer, who are deceived, so that you have a seamless virtual
scope for instance variables even though ''self'' has changed.

In the User.new case, I think the problem is that it sort of wants to
be like that, but there''s no deception: you actually have to program
the two instances and you can see graphically in your code that they
have no relation to each other.
> Regarding User''s narrow persistence destiny, I heartily disagree!
User
> models a real entity in the problem domain-- its characteristics and
> behavior-- and Active Record is used to persist it, not the other way
> around.
It''s sort of both, though, in the sense that the object is not a
completely database-innocent (so to speak) object which happens to be
sent along to an AR subsystem to be persisted. It''s already bitten the
database apple; it encapsulates knowledge of the database, and knows
how to persist itself.

I do know what you mean, though, and I''ve tried to view it that way.
It doesn''t totally work for me; it still feels like pressing an AR
object into service outside of its sweet spot.
> > As I said, I''m in the minority :-)  I understand the
reasoning behind
> > it, and I imagine I''ll get used to seeing it, but it
doesn''t sit well
> > with me.  I''d actually say it''s more an idiom thing
than an
> > implementation thing: even if proto (or some other better name) were
> > an alias of new, it would be more expressive of the status of this
> > particular instance as a kind of dead-end/stand-in object of
> > reference.
>
> I hope I''ve persuaded you ;-)  Seen in another light, there is no
dead
> end or special status for this instance.
I''m afraid I''m still a disbeliever :-)  But that''s OK
-- not everyone
has to like every idiom, and it''s very interesting to talk and think
about this particular one, I find.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jeremy Kemper

2007-Mar-12 17:25 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On 3/12/07, Jodi Showers <jodi-BOB1p6JRLoAV+D8aMU/kSg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> David, I tend to agree - it strikes me my disturbance lies in the
> tightly coupling of the ''Model to AR.
>
> If rails models were independent of storage, then Model.new would sit
> better with me.
I think Active Record succeeds because of this dependence.

Why beat around the bush when you''re almost always working with a
SQL-speaking relational database?

By assuming that object instance <-> table row, that attributes of
instances <-> fields of that row, and that associations among
instances <-> foreign-key relations among tables, we''re able to
shrug
off the heavy burden of arbitrariness in favor a simple, elegant
correspondence whose power is derived from its *avoidance* of a
generic, indirect mapping. Delightful!

By no means does this rule out loading your AR classes with behavior
modeling your domain. On the contrary, I''ve admired many an app whose
domain is richly expressed by its AR classes.

> Given the above, it is not implementation - but a symptom of the
> current Model implementation as ActiveRecord. I''ll bet dollars to
> donuts that we''ll see a separation down the road.
I encourage you to reexamine your odds-making ;-)

> The Model as means storage rears it''s head in my tests as well - I
> want to test my Models - not AR; and mocking AR is not a solution
> that sits right with me.
Whether you subclass AR::Base or include SomePersistenceStrategy,
you''re going to have to stub it out for tests one way or another.
I''ve
been very happy with Mocha for quick, natural mocks and stubs.

Best,
jeremy

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jeremy Kemper

2007-Mar-12 17:54 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> Hi --
>
> On 3/12/07, Jeremy Kemper
<jeremy-w7CzD/W5Ocjk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/12/07, David A. Black
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > Maybe.  I don''t have a slam-dunk technical argument
against it; it
> > > just strikes me as kind of loose, in the sense that, although
> > > AR::B.new does not create a database record, the whole apparatus
> > > exists as a way to persist instances to a database, so deciding
up
> > > front to create an instance that has zero chance of being
persisted
> > > seems to me contrary to the semantic thrust of the system.
> >
> > Ah, but it does. The create action has the corresponding
> >   user.attributes = params[:user]
> >   user.save
>
> But that user isn''t the same instance as the @user from the new
> action. Somewhere in create you instantiate User again.
I see what you''re saying, but don''t understand why the
User.new used
to build the edit form being the identical instance to the one saved
is important.

Their equivalence is enough for me. Perhaps it helps to think of a new
instance as a value object (equality by attributes) rather than an
entity (equality by id.)

> > So imagine we''re Seaside: the new and create actions just
happen to be
> > punctuated by a request+response:
> >   GET /users/new   user = User.new
> >   POST /users      user.update_attributes params[:user]
>
> OK... but we''re not :-)  The separation, and the need to
instantiate
> the class twice, are very palpable to me in the Rails scenario.  If
> the semantics were as above, then the situation might be different;
> but it''s hard to project that into the current semantics.
I think they *are* as above ;-)

> In fact, that might be exactly what bothers me about it. The idea is
> that you have a new instance, and someone fills out some fields for
> it, and you save it -- but that idea is very much *not* manifested in
> the actual code.
>
> Take, by way of comparison and contrast, the instance variable sharing
> between controller and view. That''s a case where the sameness of
the
> objects (@var and @var) is a deception -- but it''s you, the
> programmer, who are deceived, so that you have a seamless virtual
> scope for instance variables even though ''self'' has
changed.
>
> In the User.new case, I think the problem is that it sort of wants to
> be like that, but there''s no deception: you actually have to
program
> the two instances and you can see graphically in your code that they
> have no relation to each other.
How would it feel to marshal the instance between requests?

GET /users/new   session[:user] = User.new
POST /users      session[:user].update_attributes params[:user]

Then the code can be collapsed to a sensible linear flow with the
intervening request as params[:user] = $interweb.gets

> > Regarding User''s narrow persistence destiny, I heartily
disagree! User
> > models a real entity in the problem domain-- its characteristics and
> > behavior-- and Active Record is used to persist it, not the other way
> > around.
>
> It''s sort of both, though, in the sense that the object is not a
> completely database-innocent (so to speak) object which happens to be
> sent along to an AR subsystem to be persisted. It''s already bitten
the
> database apple; it encapsulates knowledge of the database, and knows
> how to persist itself.
>
> I do know what you mean, though, and I''ve tried to view it that
way.
> It doesn''t totally work for me; it still feels like pressing an AR
> object into service outside of its sweet spot.
But it''s not going to hell for that sweet bite of knowledge! 
It''s
free to live a happy object life despite driving a database to work.

Too many metaphors, I know ;-)

> > > As I said, I''m in the minority :-)  I understand the
reasoning behind
> > > it, and I imagine I''ll get used to seeing it, but it
doesn''t sit well
> > > with me.  I''d actually say it''s more an idiom
thing than an
> > > implementation thing: even if proto (or some other better name)
were
> > > an alias of new, it would be more expressive of the status of
this
> > > particular instance as a kind of dead-end/stand-in object of
> > > reference.
> >
> > I hope I''ve persuaded you ;-)  Seen in another light, there
is no dead
> > end or special status for this instance.
>
> I''m afraid I''m still a disbeliever :-)  But
that''s OK -- not everyone
> has to like every idiom, and it''s very interesting to talk and
think
> about this particular one, I find.
Agreed!

Best,
jeremy

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Bala Paranj

2007-Mar-12 19:20 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Resolved the simply helpful problem, if I have the line: @user User.createin the
new method, I am able to use simply helpful plugin
without any
problems.

On 3/12/07, Bala Paranj <bcparanj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
>
> ck-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org
<dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
> > block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
> > idiom:
> >
> >   def new
> >      @user = User.new
> >   end
> >
> >
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

David A. Black

2007-Mar-12 19:39 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Hi --

On 3/12/07, Bala Paranj <bcparanj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> Resolved the simply helpful problem, if I have the line: @user =
User.create
> in the new method, I am able to use simply helpful plugin without any
> problems.
That''s not a good idea, as it will add a record to the users table
whether or not the creation form gets submitted.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Christos Zisopoulos

2007-Mar-12 22:53 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

David,

On 12 Mar 2007, at 14:54, David A. Black wrote:

[snip]

I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
idiom:

  def new
     @user = User.new
  end

where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new object.[1]  But
don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this :-)  And the
general
idea of integrating stuff and making it less repetitive I think is
very sound, of course.


If it bothers you so much, you could maybe fiddle a bit with
''form_for'' to accept this in the view:

 <% form_for(Person) ... %>

Then, the helper can call ''new'' or it could interrogate Person
in some
other way in order to discover its attributes and deal with the form
creation.

-christos


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Christos Zisopoulos

2007-Mar-12 23:20 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

...ahem, I am assuming here that you have an ''edit'' and a
''new'' view
and thus...

 <% form_for Person %> /* new.rhtml */
 <% form_for @person %> /* in edit.rhtml */

If that is not the case in your apps, as it usally is in mine, then
ignore my suggestion; it would be of no help in your quest for a more
''likeable idiom''

-christos

On 12 Mar, 22:53, "Christos Zisopoulos"
<fetaph...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> David,
>
> On 12 Mar 2007, at 14:54, David A. Black wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I think it is indeed used quite widely.  I have a bit of a stumbling
> block with the form helper stuff, because I strongly dislike this
> idiom:
>
>   def new
>      @user = User.new
>   end
>
> where you create an AR instance and then discard it, for the sole
> purpose of querying it as to whether or not it''s a new object.[1] 
But
> don''t listen to me; I''m in the minority on this :-)  And
the general
> idea of integrating stuff and making it less repetitive I think is
> very sound, of course.
>
> If it bothers you so much, you could maybe fiddle a bit with
> ''form_for'' to accept this in the view:
>
>  <% form_for(Person) ... %>
>
> Then, the helper can call ''new'' or it could interrogate
Person in some
> other way in order to discover its attributes and deal with the form
> creation.
>
> -christos

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

David A. Black

2007-Mar-12 23:34 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Hi --

On 3/12/07, Christos Zisopoulos
<fetaphunk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> ...ahem, I am assuming here that you have an ''edit'' and a
''new'' view
> and thus...
>
>  <% form_for Person %> /* new.rhtml */
>  <% form_for @person %> /* in edit.rhtml */
>
> If that is not the case in your apps, as it usally is in mine, then
> ignore my suggestion; it would be of no help in your quest for a more
> ''likeable idiom''
The thing is, what SimplyHelpful does is it lets you use only one form:

  <% form_for @person ... %>

and it decides what the form action is by querying @person as to
whether or not it is a new record.  The crux of it is:

              html_options = if object.new_record?
                { :class  => dom_class(object, :new),  :id =>
dom_id(object), :method => :post }
              else
                { :class  => dom_class(object, :edit), :id =>
dom_id(object, :edit), :method => :put }
              end

So it''s an alternative to having two forms (or two master forms that
share partials, or using variables to store the action names, or
whatever).


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Christos Zisopoulos

2007-Mar-13 00:34 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On 12 Mar, 23:34, "David A. Black"
<dbl...-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> The thing is, what SimplyHelpful does is it lets you use only one form:
>
>   <% form_for @person ... %>
>
> and it decides what the form action is by querying @person as to
> whether or not it is a new record.
Yes, I was aware of that. In most of my apps the ''new'' form
looks
nothing like the ''edit'' form, hence my suggestion.

>               html_options = if object.new_record?
I guess you could monkey patch the above with something like:

  html_options = if object.respond_to?(''new'')

as a (probably incorrect?) way to catch if you have an instantiated
object, and then

 def new
  @person = Person
 end

But then ''new'' becomes even more
''unlikeable''. Hmm...

-christos


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

James Stewart

2007-Mar-13 01:54 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

On Mar 12, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Bala Paranj wrote:> Resolved the simply helpful problem, if I have the line: @user =  
> User.create in the new method, I am able to use simply helpful  
> plugin without any problems.
Are you sure that''s a good idea? It may well be creating a lot of  
empty entries in your database (if a user requests a form and then  
doesn''t complete it). And even if that never happens,  it will be  
invoking any validations in your User model.

Whatever the conceptual rights or wrongs of using User.new in the new  
method, it has a lot less performance implications than using create.

James.

-- 
James Stewart
http://jystewart.net/process/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

bcparanj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org

2007-Mar-19 06:01 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Sorry, I meant this:

def new
 @user = User.new
end

not create.


On Mar 12, 9:54 pm, James Stewart
<jystew...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> On Mar 12, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Bala Paranj wrote:
>
> > Resolved the simply helpful problem, if I have the line: @user >
> User.create in the new method, I am able to use simply helpful
> > plugin without any problems.
>
> Are you sure that''s a good idea? It may well be creating a lot

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

David A. Black

2007-Mar-19 11:58 UTC

head link

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Hi --

On 3/19/07, bcparanj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
<bcparanj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> Sorry, I meant this:
>
> def new
>  @user = User.new
> end
>
> not create.
Scroll back about 12 messages in this thread for some discussion of
this idiom :-)


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Rails - Mar 2007 - Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?

Re: Simply Helpful - Is it being used?