Have you seen Jose's active model serializers? It's way better than the
default.
On Thursday, September 6, 2012, Gary Weaver wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, dburry wrote:
>>
>> There's that word again, practicality. This is the opposite of theory.
>> Gary, if you ch
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 5:21:04 PM UTC-4, dburry wrote:
>
> There's that word again, practicality. This is the opposite of theory.
> Gary, if you change your approach to a more practical demonstration than
> just theory, I think you'll find better receptivity. This means: you,
> writ
Just wanted to say it has little sense IMO to say Rails is RESTful of not.
Individual applications may or may not be RESTful. Rails gives you the
means to do whatever you want. In particular it gives you the means of
writing RESTful applications easily and has some golden path you may follow.
You
Yehuda has previously stated that he will do everything possible to make
Rails and Ember work well together. I also have a big interest in making
this happen. I think that regardless of my personal feelings on the matter,
people will want to build them, and I think Rails should provide them with
a
Rails strikes me as a practical framework. Not only does it solve everyday
problems that people have, but the best way to start a conversation seems
to be to demonstrate, with actual working code (possibly gemmed or forked
as necessary), why something is needed, rather than just discussing
the
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:11:37 PM UTC-4, Steve Klabnik wrote:
>
> > And that wouldn't map up to the right attributes, because it isn't meant
> to
> > take a patch.
>
> Ah, sure. So now we're getting to something. What would you propose in
> this area?
>
Good question. I can probably
> And that wouldn't map up to the right attributes, because it isn't meant to
> take a patch.
Ah, sure. So now we're getting to something. What would you propose in
this area?
> It would be an edge case, but the default generation of a scaffold supports
> json format, right? Doesn't that indicat
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:43:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> What would ActiveRecord need? It already has methods to upload just
> certain columns.
>
Sorry- my fault.
Let's say the client using JSON service defined on the controller is a
Javascript framework such as AngularJS or Em
Okay. First thing I want to say: It's important to separate "What
Rails does" from REST. Rails implements something that is mostly
RESTful but also not in many places, and that's fine, but you can't
always directly compare the two.
That said...
> PATCH was added to the methods accepted already,
I think HTTP PATCH is really something that goes well with REST and rails, as
those are used for updating a single resource the same way as PUT does.
However, "application/json-patch" introduce multiple-resources update, which
isn't really compatible with the way we implement REST today.
- Prem
Im at Windy City Rails today, but expect a long-ish response in a few
hours.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send emai
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:28:27 PM UTC-4, Aaron Patterson wrote:
>
> https://github.com/tenderlove/hana
Thanks, Aaron! Related thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/rubyonrails-core/uuc6YmEb_XE
I confused things when I started this thread, then deleted it b
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:36:58 PM UTC-4, Prem Sichanugrist wrote:
>
> I'd assume that this is something that's new, and totally different from
> the way we implement REST resource endpoints. So, I'd assume that we don't
> need that for now.
>
PATCH was added to the methods accepted a
13 matches
Mail list logo
