On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:58 PM, S. Brent Faulkner wrote: > >> One of the things about the Rails code that people tend to frown upon >> is the Base class. I was wondering if anyone ever considered >> replacing > > Can you point me in the direction of some discussion of what's wrong > with the "Base class" that people "frown upon"?
I don't know of any articles that talk about this, I've mostly discussed it face-to-face. And example of a project that changed their API is Datamapper, they went from: class Author < DataMapper::Base; end To class Author; include DataMapper::Resource; end > Just wondering, since I don't recall a problem off-hand? There is no problem in the sense that tests are failing or a feature is broken. It's just weird to have a class with a non-descriptive name. I get the feeling that the Base class was created because David wanted to create a namespace named ActiveRecord to prevent conflicts but also wanted to have something you could inherit from. ActiveRecord::ActiveRecord is weird, so it ended up being ActiveRecord::Base. I personally think ActiveRecord::Model or just ActiveRecord would have been a better name. I see a lot of people using this as an idiom in other Ruby libraries and applications because they learn their first Ruby by developing a Rails applications, even though this idiom might not fit their project. Manfred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
