Regarding tutorials/docs -- would there really be a problem with doing this, then:
class ActiveRecord Base = self end In other words, ::Base would still work, it'd just be redundant, and probably depricated. As for the clarity, there's plenty of indirection anyway. I'd rather have a clear API. In fact, that is the whole point of Rails, to me -- having everything be clear, simple, and easy, so I have less to think about. ::Base is information I don't need, and don't care about. It's not DRY, and it's pointless. But I'm also not sure how much it's worth arguing about. On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Ryan Bigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's too major of a change to make imo and there's just too many > tutorials/docs out there that reference Class Model < > ActiveRecord::Base. To me, it makes sense that a model "inherits from" > ActiveRecord::Base because that's where a model gets its methods from. > > ----- > Ryan Bigg > Freelancer > http://frozenplague.net > > > > > > > > On 10/10/2008, at 9:01 AM, Manfred Stienstra wrote: > > > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
