rails-devel

[Rails-devel] FW: First verry little patch

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

Hi Rainer,
 
BTW I am redirecting this post to the mailing list as it contains items of
general interest.

Here comes my first, very little patch:

A new main class with which you can start rails with arguments (Example:
RailsMain 1830 - p1 p2 p3 p4).

Well, GameTest was of course a temporary name anyway.

By the way: I would prefer a main parent package, where all other packages
are children from. SUN guidelines tells about a location.company.package
structure. Normally rails would be org.rails.*, but I think rails.* would be
enough for now. If you have discussed this before and did'nt want it, I will
refactore the swing package to root.

We have not discussed this before, and I like the idea of putting rails in
front of all package names.

I have used swing as a package name instead of UI, because maybe someone
else would like to make a SWT-UI or a JSP-UI. 

In that case I would propose rails.ui.swing.

 

I reckon that at some point we will need separate classes for ui-related (or
client-side) logic 

that is common to all possible UI implementations, such as the code that
interfaces with the

back-end Round instances. Such classes could then be in rails.ui.

 

Erik.

Second maybe I have to transfer your UI-Components to my UI-Components part
by part. With my own package, I can use both classes at the same time and do
not have to use different class names for the same thing.

 

Hope you like it

 

Regards

Rainer

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Rails-devel] FW: First verry little patch

[brett l. <wak...@gm...>]

On 1/16/07, Erik Vos <eri...@hc...> wrote:
>
>  Hi Rainer,
>
> BTW I am redirecting this post to the mailing list as it contains items o=
f
> general interest.
>
>  Here comes my first, very little patch:
>
> A new main class with which you can start rails with arguments (Example:
> RailsMain 1830 =96 p1 p2 p3 p4).
>
> Well, GameTest was of course a temporary name anyway.
>


Correct.  However, I'm not sure I understand why you've added in using
command-line arguments.

I really don't want to have differences in functionality. At the very least=
,
if there's a command-line argument for something, there also needs to be a
way for the same feature to be accessed in the UI.

So, this particular part of your patch needs a bit more work, and probably
some additional discussion.



By the way: I would prefer a main parent package, where all other packages
> are children from. SUN guidelines tells about a location.company.packages=
tructure. Normally rails would be
> org.rails.*, but I think rails.* would be enough for now. If you have
> discussed this before and did'nt want it, I will refactore the swing pack=
age
> to root.
>
> We have not discussed this before, and I like the idea of putting rails i=
n
> front of all package names.
>

That seems good.  If you send me a patch for just moving and renaming the
existing GameTest, I'll apply that.


I have used swing as a package name instead of UI, because maybe someone
> else would like to make a SWT-UI or a JSP-UI.
>
> In that case I would propose rails.ui.swing.
>


I reckon that at some point we will need separate classes for ui-related (o=
r
> client-side) logic
>
> that is common to all possible UI implementations, such as the code that
> interfaces with the
>
> back-end Round instances. Such classes could then be in rails.ui.
>

Agreed.  We can move the Swing components to rails.ui.swing.


Erik.
>
> Second maybe I have to transfer your UI-Components to my UI-Components
> part by part. With my own package, I can use both classes at the same tim=
e
> and do not have to use different class names for the same thing.
>
>
>
> Hope you like it
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rainer
>
>