@Jeremy: You're somewhat twisting my words, I'm not saying software should never change. Just that this is a purely cosmetic change. It doesn't improve things. So there's no real justification for it, other than "some people would prefer it a different way." There's no reason to break things that ain't broke.
@David: Lots of plugins mixin to ActiveRecord::Base, or override methods. Are you going to volunteer to help all those maintainers fix them? And add nasty checks everywhere to see if Base is defined; else use the new "better" name? Now, Xavier mentions an interesting option that may satisfy both camps. Create an ApplicationModel like ApplicationController. There, a place for application-specific overrides (rather than environment.rb), and it doesn't have that "Base" name that apparently bothers a few people. Rails is mature enough already, and depended upon enough already that renaming classes just for the sake of a "better name" should be completely out of the question. Giving an impression of instability is not something Rails needs. Just the opposite; Rails still needs to continue workingl at getting a reputation for being "rock solid" (to which great strides are being made with the new threading stuff, etc). -Nate --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
