[PATCH] Change application.rb to application_controller.rb

+1 This is a big annoyance..

+1

+1

+1

The only side effect I can think of the current patch is, application.rb won't be preloaded now. I'm not quite sure if it'll have any impact or not. Just pointing it out.

Thanks.

I think this is a good change, but the initializer code should also try to require application.rb if the file exists, at Rails startup.

This will avoid making life irritating for all those existing projects.

+1

+1

Someone needs to update the Railties generators too.

Not it!

+1

+1

+1 any backwards compatible headaches are worth future consistency. imho.

Big +1

We'd also need to consider folks upgrading their apps without being aware of this change. Perhaps abort 'Please rename <x> to <y>' if File.exist?("#{RAILS_ROOT}/app/controllers/application.rb") in the Initializer?

I changed the generator..

Adding to the initializer sounds like a good idea. I'll update the patch.

+1 (I can't believe you guys didn't do this for Rails 2.0.)

+1 good consistency

+1

+1

+1

+1, not that it needs anymore

-1

application_controller.rb should be *preloaded* to keep the old behavior. There is no sense in breaking existing code for a trivial issue.

what 'old behavior'? I've tested the patch various ways and have yet to find something that breaks or behaves differently in any way. I don't see the point in creating a special case for no reason.

Also, calling it "trivial" is an opinion. I am currently mentoring someone who was stuck for 20 minutes while I was out grabbing lunch because he couldn't find where application_controller was defined, due to the inconsistency.

At another point a developer was blocked from checking in because he was using a controller in development.rb and couldn't figure out why it was failing.

These might not be your problem, but they are real issues for any organization adopting rails.

I think it's a little over the top to imply there's some kind of adoption blocker in this particular case. It's like this for historical reasons because abstract_application_controller.rb was a little long.

If you'd like to see this changed, let's discuss it with a thread on the core list rather than lots of back and forth here. We'd need an upgrade strategy, a deprecation strategy and some pretty good justification. I'm as annoyed as most of you by the special case, but that doesn't mean it's an easy thing to change :).

I totally agree with this, especially since there is a patch for the generator has a patch and a warning. Granted it should have a depreciation notice and perhaps only added as a one way street at 2.1 and for now let it be patched to work either way for 2.0.x

+1

+1

+1

Regardless of whether it's an adoption-blocker or not, it's inconsistent and annoying. Let's change it.

+1

+1

+1

This makes too much logical sense to leave it out. This breaks the "Principle of Least Surprise".

+1

It should be possible to support loading of app/controllers/application.rb, if it exists, and then at some point deprecate it, surely.

There's no point continuing to +1 this ticket until we've had a thread discussing this change on the mailing list. I'm closing this ticket until that's happened, assuming we decide to go that way we can reopen it.

If you're interested in this change and have a strong opinion either way, jump into the mailing list to hash this out.

http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/t/468c964babd6d011

+1 - really great idea

+ 1

The new version of the patch warns and autoloads application.rb if it exists.

update for rebase

The forgiving version looks good, but perhaps the initializer should use the deprecation methods instead of puts?

The rescue nil thing seems a little broad too, what does it do when there's a syntax error in application.rb?

I'll change it to require the file if it exists. As far as deprecation, I looked at the methods that were in there and only saw warnings that pertained to methods being deprecated. Did I miss a more general deprecation warning?

+1 I am patching existing Rails Application by opening its classes including controllers and decorating the methods, the patch is loaded at the end of environment.rb, it does not work unless I change application.rb to application_controller.rb

You can just call the warn method on deprecation, that way it'll show up in the right place based on their preferences

Deprecation.warn "Wow, please rename"

+1

Annoying

Any news on when it's going to be checked in? :-)

I'm sorry to be posting here again. But I *seriously* fail to see any advantages of this patch, compared to the confusion it can bring to people who are way too used to application.rb. May be I'm just too used to application.rb name.

So without planning to start any debates or trying to negative, I'm just gonna say I'm big -1 on this one. However, I do like the idea of renaming ApplicationController to Application. For those who didn't know, application.rb used to be called abstract_controller.rb. So we've kinda been there already.

Well, there are naming conventions so why don't we just follow them? Globally, Ruby on Rails is the one big convention :-). That's why I like it. So everything must be on it's place.

P.S. Lifo, thanks for your contribution to Rails, you're definetly one of those who Rails community should proud of, but I can't agree with your -1 ;-).

Alek, I don't get it

Haha.. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bikeshed

Ahhhr, bastard :-D

+1