On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 23:49, Xavier Noria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:34 PM, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I still like Base both as a name for what the thing is, it's the base >> > class of Active Record, and for its reusability across different >> > frameworks, like ActionController::Base, ActiveResource::Base, etc. >> >> But we've ApplicationController < AC::Base to put common stuff. Modulo >> de impedance in the docs I explained, don't you think ApplicationModel >> < AR::Base makes sense for the same purpose in Rails? > > > Nothing prevents people from writing: > > class ApplicationModel < ActiveRecord::Base > self.abstract_class = true > end > Nothing prevents people, but ApplicationController is provided by the default Rails skeleton, and used by "script/generate controller". Having the same for ActiveRecord isn't entirely unreasonable, and wouldn't really require touching ActiveRecord -- just Rails generators. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
