On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Eloy Duran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10 okt 2008, at 01:43, Jeremy Evans wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Regarding tutorials/docs -- would there really be a problem with >>> doing this, >>> then: >>> >>> class ActiveRecord >>> Base = self >>> end >> >> That breaks code that assumes ActiveRecord is a module and not a >> class, which is going to be a lot of code. > > That's why such a change should only be introduced in a point release, > which will break a lot of code anyway and this will probably be the > easiest > compatibility fix of all of them. So I don't think that's really an > argument against it. > > I find Base the worst class name ever. > It does not at all communicate it's intention other > than that it's a base class for something.
It's the base class for active record models. If you consider the name outside the context of the module it's in, then yeah, it's shit. But the same is true of almost every class that's in a module, unless you do something weird like: Database::DatabaseConnection rather than Database::Connection Fundamentally though, the name is entrenched in every rails app out there, and we'd need a reason other than "ick" to go and change it, even in a 3.0 release. > Eloy > > > > > -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
