>>>> 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

Well the only weird thing here is the same issue as with  
ActiveRecord::Base.
In other words, name it: Product::DatabaseConnection.

> 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.

Actually in modern Rails apps, don't know about older versions though,
there is no occurrence at all of the string "module ActiveRecord".

Anyways, I don't think discussing these implementation details adds
anything to a possible discussion about the original question.
Because it is indeed, as you say, just an "ick" :)

About the original question, I actually think Manfred really wanted to  
know
if his assumption about why it was named this way by David was  
correct. [1]
Any ideas on that?

Cheers,
Eloy

[1]: "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." -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to