On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Nate Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @Jeremy: You're somewhat twisting my words, I'm not saying software > should never change. Just that this is a purely cosmetic change. Cosmetic changes are actually largely why I would use Rails in the first place, I think -- and why, when I use Sequel::Model instead of ActiveRecord, I still end up using has_many and belongs_to, rather than one_to_many or associate. Semantics are important. Syntactic sugar (or vinegar) is important. > @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? Those "nasty" checks could be on Rails.version. And for the third time now, those plugins would continue to work. ActiveRecord::Base would be exactly the same as ActiveRecord, until a major breaking change (Rails 3?). Now, Xavier mentions an interesting option that may satisfy both > camps. Create an ApplicationModel like ApplicationController. Yes, that would satisfy me. Not that I was particularly passionate about this in the first place. I just wanted to demonstrate that this could be a purely cosmetic change, with little or no impact on compatibility. Since I actually don't care, I guess I'm just making noise. I'll stop. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
