<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Oracle AppsLab - Latest Comments in Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:27:43 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.com/2007/11/27/mix-rake-stats/#comment-2546594</link><description>Thank you, this was interesting!&lt;br&gt;I thought the Mix is smaller.. and impressed by the code/test ratio )</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Artem Vasiliev</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:27:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.com/2007/11/27/mix-rake-stats/#comment-2546595</link><description>bex, rake stats just counts the pure ruby code, irregardless of what it's running under (MRI or JRuby).  It's a count of how much code we actually wrote.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rich Manalang</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:56:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.com/2007/11/27/mix-rake-stats/#comment-2546598</link><description>If you want the Mix code to be opened, vote for this idea:&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/open-source-mix-code" rel="nofollow"&gt;https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/open-source-mix-code&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jake</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:27:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.com/2007/11/27/mix-rake-stats/#comment-2546597</link><description>That rule might not apply for JRuby... Or should I say, "all benchmarks lie"?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In JRuby, one line in the 'model' might represent an invocation of one hundred lines of Java.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Unless rake stats are smart enough to follow invoked Java code, count lines, and add that to the report... in which case, I'm impressed ;-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bex</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:02:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.com/2007/11/27/mix-rake-stats/#comment-2546596</link><description>We're familiar with the credo.  Don't let the numbers fool you.  Our controllers are actually pretty skinny (and our models are pretty fat).  We just have lots of controller actions.  And... to by honest, there's quite a bit of refactoring to be done.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If we ever open source the code, you'll see.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rich Manalang</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:58:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mix Rake Stats</title><link>http://theappslab.com/2007/11/27/mix-rake-stats/#comment-2546593</link><description>Rails mantra is "fat models and skinny controllers" :) In your case controllers seem to be more fat than models. Why is it so?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Raimonds</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:56:21 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>