Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Labeling #39

Closed
chadwtaylor opened this Issue Apr 9, 2012 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants

Would be nice to isolate the table names to mailboxes (ie: mailboxer_receipts, mailboxer_conversations...) so that it is "separate" from my schema and readable to new developers working on my project knowing this belongs to this specific project.

Owner

Roendal commented Apr 11, 2012

Hi @chadwtaylor!

This is a really good idea indeed, the problem is that I don't have quality time to dedicate to mailboxer right now. I am focusing on bugs and fixing problems with mailboxer critical functionality.

If you are really really interested in supporting database prefixes (which I understand as optional and customizable) we could give it a try if you help me ;)

Contributor

RKushnir commented May 2, 2012

Hi,
I would also suggest moving the models into Mailboxer namespace to avoid conflicts when there's already a model with the same name in the application. We can use https://github.com/mbleigh/acts-as-taggable-on/blob/master/lib/acts_as_taggable_on/tag.rb as an example.

Owner

Roendal commented May 3, 2012

@RKushnir, your idea is really interesting, and we thought about it when first designing Mailboxer. As we use names such as Message, Conversation, etc. which are heavily related to a message system, is not common to use these names in your application unless developing something similar to Mailboxer.

There is no issue related with this, so it's not a priority.

As I said to @chadwtaylor, I don't have quality time to implement new features or improvements, so I will ask any interested developer to help Mailboxer by adding this support.

Thanks.

Contributor

RKushnir commented May 8, 2012

@Roendal, perhaps, you're right. It seems that it's not uncommon practice to store models in app folder of the Rails engine without namespace.

Contributor

daveworth commented Jun 15, 2012

@Roendal and @RKushnir I ran into exactly this as I wanted my controller to be called "NotificationsController" but since I use CanCan for Authorization, and specifically I use load_and_authorize_resources I ran into issues. It would be great if Conversation, Notification (the one that caused me problems), and Receipt (imagine an e-commerce site) were namespaced in such a way to eliminate collisions. The question is how to not break backwards compatibility for users that are accessing those objects via AR finders already.

If this functionality were added, and I think it would be good, it should be in a major version release rather than a minor/patch level release.

Owner

Roendal commented Jun 15, 2012

You are totally right Dave. Namespacing should have been implemented from the beginning, but I didn't foresee such problems, which was a great mistake.

Right now, moving everything into a namespace and assuring everything works fine will require a great amount of work. Unfortunately I moved to a new project some months ago, and its really time consuming. So I can't focus my time on such a major update.

If anyone has the guts to take this challenge It will be a great push for Mailboxer.

@searsaw searsaw closed this Aug 24, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment