> 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.
Controllers have a much closer bond than models do. The reason for ApplicationController is specifically to deal with the common scenario of filters that needs to be shared across all controllers and, as a distant second, shared functionality of the standard variety. In other words, application-specific behavior that doesn't fit into ActionController::Base. I've personally never felt the desire to include any such application- specific behavior for all my Active Record models. And unlike Action Controller, Active Record doesn't have a monopoly on the model space in a Rails application (just think Active Resource or vanilla Ruby objects). I frequently have non-AR models, so ApplicationModel would be misleading. So I see the comparison, but I don't think it's valid in this case. Controllers and models are of a different breed and need different care. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
