Setting params for a connection-based form_for

[kelvinst]

@tmbb

Why? Because you don’t want to review the entirety of Ecto’s source? Would you be willing to review the Changeset module?

Well, just because I really don’t need all the db connection, queries and commands logic. So it’s more of a architectural/conceptual problem IMO.

@tmbb

• Compile times are pretty good
• Disk space is very cheap these days (not cheap enough to run a full bitcoin node, for example, but certainly cheap enough to store Ecto inside your project)

I agree, but that’s not the point at all.

@tmbb

Splitting Ecto into two packages brings an additional maintenance burden to the Ecto developers: two repositories, two issues trackers, two test suites, two sets of versions to manage and release, two libraries that should evolve in lockstep and which now have independent releases, two sets of guides, etc. It might have the good side effect of making the Changeset stand out on its own, but is it worth it?

This is a good argument, maybe an umbrella project can make it a little bit easier. IDK

@tmbb

I see people decrying npm’s micro packages as a horrible thing and wishing Javascript had a larger standard library so that there would be no need for such deep dependency trees.

And I’m one of them! But I guess Ecto and Changeset are big enough libraries to live on their own.

@tmbb

I wonder if this decoupling thing isn’t being taken too far sometimes. My Elixir code depends on the Standard Library, of which I use only a couple modules per project. Should we split that?

They do take too far sometimes, but I think this is not one of this times. Elixir standard lib still growing and I don’t have too much problems with that because they have good reasons for it and they explain them to us.