Epilogue fails when restify.createServer uses a custom name.

[jgutix]

Let's say I initialize my server like this:

var server = restify.createServer({
    name: 'pinche-api'
});

If any of my resources enables the delete controller it will fail with this error:

has no method 'delete'
    at Controller.route (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/Controllers/base.js:76:19)
    at Controller.initialize (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/Controllers/base.js:33:8)
    at Controller (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/Controllers/base.js:9:8)
    at new Delete (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/Controllers/delete.js:8:17)
    at null.<anonymous> (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/Resource.js:69:32)
    at Array.forEach (native)
    at new Resource (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/Resource.js:65:16)
    at Object.epilogue.resource (/Applications/AMPPS/www/pinche/api/node_modules/epilogue/lib/index.js:62:20)

This is happening because https://github.com/dchester/epilogue/blob/master/lib/Controllers/base.js#L73 is specifically comparing app.name === 'restify'

I think if there's other way to detect automatically that restify is used would be great, otherwise an option in the epilogue.initialize method that manually set that you are using restify would be a good solution too. Even tough this is not a big deal or issue, it's just not easy to tell what is the problem based on the error returned.

[mbroadst]

duplicate of #133

[jgutix]

@mbroadst do think that using app.constructor.name instead of app.name would be fine? Because restify always return 'Server' meanwhile express returns 'EventEmitter', if so I can prepare a PR to address this.

[mbroadst]

@jgutix yeah I generally think it's best-effort here, so whatever works best works :smile:

I would say there are two ideals here:

• refactor the code to check if its express or restify into a single function, even if its just a single line of code, so people in the future know where and what to change if/when this changes
• include a simple test case exhibiting the current bug, as well as proving that it is indeed fixed