Received: by 10.229.109.207 with SMTP id k15mr1603116qcp.0.1249413742884;
        Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <j...@technicalpickles.com>
Received: from mail-vw0-f177.google.com (mail-vw0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si1130233qyk.3.2009.08.04.12.22.22;
        Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: error (google.com: error in processing during lookup of j...@technicalpickles.com: DNS timeout) client-ip=209.85.212.177;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=temperror (google.com: error in processing during lookup of j...@technicalpickles.com: DNS timeout) smtp.mail=j...@technicalpickles.com
Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so1516293vws.29
        for <boston-rubygroup@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: by 10.220.95.5 with SMTP id b5mr7099374vcn.22.1249413742671; Tue, 04 
	Aug 2009 12:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b6b8b6b70908041212w64105d08ma7812cea2217a53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <df300b150908041150m4d433069k6da8d5ee64bf562b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b6b8b6b70908041212w64105d08ma7812cea2217a53@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:22:22 -0400
Message-ID: <df300b150908041222qdb61de8g76006e7b967751c4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: battle of the restful controller abstractions (boilerplate vs 
	resource_controller vs inherited_resources vs ???)
From: Josh Nichols <j...@technicalpickles.com>
To: boston-rubygroup@googlegroups.com

My opinions on the matter are still marinating. They will be delicious
when they are ready though.

- Josh

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:12 PM, John Norman<j...@7fff.com> wrote:
> Josh,
>
> How about saying now which way you prefer and why?
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Josh Nichols <j...@technicalpickles.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> When Dan Croak was conducting the bostonrb.org code review last week,
>> we noticed that part of the project was using resource_controller, and
>> the rest was not.
>>
>> The thought occurred, what if we did a side-by-side comparison of the
>> 'normal' way of restful controllers, to using the various restful
>> controller abstractions, like resource_controller and
>> inherited_resources, for the entire app?
>>
>> So I set out to do so. These were my goals:
>> =A0 - start from a baseline commit
>>
>> (http://github.com/bostonrb/bostonrb/commit/9f92569536ea54952d8d873708b0=
c9cb8e7145fc)
>> =A0 - use the abstraction whenever boilerplate rest stuff is used
>> =A0 - tests and stories cannot be changed, and must pass
>>
>> Here are the results:
>>
>> The original code:
>> =A0 =A0http://github.com/bostonrb/bostonrb/tree/master
>>
>> Using resource_controller everywhere:
>> =A0 =A0http://github.com/bostonrb/bostonrb/tree/resource_controller
>>
>> Using inherited_resources everywhere:
>> =A0 =A0http://github.com/bostonrb/bostonrb/tree/inherited_resources
>>
>> With that, I'd like to open discussion on how good/bad it is to use
>> these abstractions, and how the implementation compare.
>>
>> Additionally, if you have another contender you'd like to see battle,
>> just fork on bostonrb on github, make a branch for it, and report back
>> here.
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>