Re: Need Help With Datebock plugin

Nathaniel Brown
Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:25:01 -0000

Whether its a plugin or an engine doesn''t make a difference.

Those who want to discourage you from using engines really should
stop, but they unfortunately wont as they are blinded by some unknown
force that compels them to cause needless fear and doubt in those that
are considering it.

Simple as it gets, engines provide someting that Plugins don''t. An
intuitive way to manage assets. On load, all assets are moved over
into the public directory. I consistently find myself modifying the
assets, and all I need to do is update my svn and restart the server
to see them active. No third step, running a rake task.

I have been considering having the engine also double as a standard
plugin with an associative rake task, just to please those that
consider it "overkill", but that is way on the back burner.

What measure to you have to assume that an "engine" is anything more
than a "plugin" anyways? Have you done any benchmarks to see if it
does indeed cause more load on the app? I seriously doubt this is not
the case, and if it is, the numbers would be similar to comparing Ruby
to Perl, where using one simply saves more time than using the other,
forget about the "overkill" and start comparing what really matters.

Nathaniel.

On 3/26/07, glenn <glenn.gillen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
> Nathaniel,
>
> Just curious as to why you''ve got this wrapped up in an engine
when a
> plugin would seem to suffice? Seems a bit overkill for something that
> inserts javascript and a text field onto a page. Or am I missing
> something?
>
> Glenn
>
>
> >
>


--
Nathaniel Steven Henry Brown

Toll Free: 1-877-446-4647
Vancouver: 604-724-6624