Re: Routing Concerns

[José Valim]

I am not really following up what is happening with the routes concern thing, but I just want to point out that using "def method" like the proposed solution introduces a chance of method conflict:

    draw do

      def parent_resource

        resource :parent

      end

      resources :posts do

        parent_resource

      end

    end

Bam, now you are conflicting with https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/routing/mapper.rb#L1414 and it can lead to a considerable amount of hair pulling. I don't think there is a way for us to detect such conflicts (or is there a way to define a method_added hook in the object singleton class?). Besides, the fact that the current router implementation is a bunch of modules with many private methods (don't get me started) just makes the chances of conflict higher.

Of the suggestions I have seen so far, I liked the lambda one the most. But then, I am a sucker for functional programming.

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:09:05 PM UTC-3, Corey Haines wrote:

So, there's been some commenting on the Routing Concerns that has been added to rails.

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b

This seems to be adding no more functionality or ease of use than simply using methods, Ruby's standard form of reuse.

Here's are links to comments about using methods:

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b#commitcomment-1743800

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b#commitcomment-1746912

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b#commitcomment-1746901

I don't see any added value that this adds. Would love to invite other comments and discussion on what this feature adds over just using Ruby.

[Corey Haines]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:04:17 AM UTC-5, José Valim wrote:

...

 

Bam, now you are conflicting with https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/routing/mapper.rb#L1414 and it can lead to a considerable amount of hair pulling. I don't think there is a way for us to detect such conflicts (or is there a way to define a method_added hook in the object singleton class?). Besides, the fact that the current router implementation is a bunch of modules with many private methods (don't get me started) just makes the chances of conflict higher.

That's a reasonable concern.

 

Of the suggestions I have seen so far, I liked the lambda one the most. But then, I am a sucker for functional programming.

Yeah, the lambda one is nice. My main concern is adding another layer of abstraction/indirection that invites a bloat of routes.

-corey

[DHH]

I've explained why concerns are wonderful and not going anywhere on the commit itself:

https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b#commitcomment-1749011

[Corey Haines]

David,

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:12 AM, DHH <da...@loudthinking.com> wrote:
> I've explained why concerns are wonderful and not going anywhere on the
> commit itself:
> https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0dd24728a088fcb4ae616bb5d62734aca5276b1b#commitcomment-1749011

Actually you explained that they are not going anywhere. I don't see
an explanation in there about why they are wonderful.

But, since conversation is shut down, I guess we can all sit back and
continue to help teams recover from using your "wonderful" features.

-Corey

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/guF9Z-da6vIJ.
> To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rubyonrails-co...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.