Have actions on the models?

[blueyed]

What is the reason to have the abstraction / indirection through pinax.stripe.actions, if most of it could be on the model directly, either as methods or classmethods?

[alexstewartja]

+1 for fat models, skinny views. I've decided to use pinax-stripe as loose inspiration for a more modern payments library, instead of hacking around poor design choices or struggling with the owner over obvious issues.

[blueyed]

@alexstewartja
Is it available online somewhere (already)?

[paltman]

We've always had skinny views. We previously had fat models. But it was becoming hard to tie every bit of the API I wanted to provide to a particular model. So I made the decision to have skinny views AND skinny models and pull the business logic into its own subpackage.

It's mostly a design decision based on preference. There isn't really a technical reason why on models or in a business logic package is better over the other. That said, I felt that it might be easier to maintain as the library grew as I think the actions will far outnumber the models and it could make the models REALLY fat which can be hard to sort through (as we ran into previously), rather than having small modules with discreet functions.

@alexstewartja alexstewartja good luck to you.

[paltman]

@alexstewartja I went to try and remind myself of how you have struggled with the owner in the past as I was assuming you were talking about me. I wanted to make sure I hadn't been unpleasant to work with but I didn't find any reference to your github id in the repo other than the one pull request you sent that I merged. Maybe I'm searching badly. Could you remind me?

[paltman]

@blueyed i think you meant @alexstewartja (I made the same mistake and edited my comments)

[blueyed]

Here we go (likely): #380 (comment)