[LRUG] [Blog post] (Rails) Application directories named as architectural patterns antipattern

[jc at panagile.com]

Hi Enrico,




Thanks for sharing this. It’s an approach that I agree with in general - I’d much rather classes were grouped by domain than by pattern. I have got a couple of questions though:




1) Why is it ok to end up with a directories for Controllers, Views and Helpers?




2) Sometimes you are creating classes that fulfil specific roles within the framework; e.g, Presenters. How do identify their function when they aren’t grouped in a directory?




(Or maybe my assumtion at the start of the second question is wrong, in which case I’d like to hear why.)




Thanks,

John

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Enrico Teotti <enrico.teotti at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
> I wrote a blog post on (Rails) application directories named as
> architectural patterns and suggesting a more intention revealing
> alternative:
> http://teotti.com/application-directories-named-as-architectural-patterns-antipattern/
> Ciao,
> Enrico
> -- 
> [skype] enrico.teotti
> [web] http://teotti.com
> [twitter] agenteo
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20150909/7634c02f/attachment.html>