I don't have a lot to offer to this subject except to say that in my
experience of building declarative bidirectional relationships in
Javascript (to proxy AR records!) I found that "promoting" the
associations to a full-blown model was quite clean. If done directly
in AR, I could imagine something like this:
in app/models/dangerous_circus_tricks.rb
class DangerousCircusTrick < ActiveRecord::AssociationModel
associate ExtremeJuggler, [FlamingSticks]
def adequately_insured?
flaming_sticks < 3 || extreme_juggler.experience == :expert
end
end
Complex relationships (particularly with bidirectionality) sometimes
warrant a dedicated model -even if the particulars of the ORM layer
don't require a dedicated table. I suspect that such an approach
would extend well into ActiveResource and other non-RDBMS stores. It
could even be used to model mixed associations (an AR record
associated with an ActiveRes model).
On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Murray Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/12/2 acechase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 1, 12:14 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > As for the bi-directionality of in-memory AR objects, you should check
> > > > out the parental-control plugin, which while incomplete, covers quite
> > > > a bit of what is needed to support bi-directional associations in
> > > > rails:
> > > >http://github.com/h-lame/parental_control/tree/master
>
> > > Nice! I'd love to see something along these lines baked right in to 2.3
>
> > > --
> > > Cheers
>
> > > Koz
>
> > Three cheers to that! h-lame has done some really good work getting
> > the parental_control plugin working, but I think it would make
> > hammering out the trickier bits much easier if it was part of core.
>
> Ah-ha! Now I understand why my little un-announced plugin suddenly got some
> watchers on github ;)
>
> So, here seems like as good a place as any to thrash it out. What do we
> think I/we'd need to do to get it into core? As someone pointed out, it's
> pretty incomplete so I'm sure I've not covered all the edge cases, although
> I think it does a pretty good job of giving up if it can't find something
> that it thinks is the right inverse / reciprocal relationship (and we're
> using it in a production app here and it's yet to fall over).
>
> The first natural extension to me would be to allow for :inverse options on
> association definitions that would allow for getting round trying to work it
> out, e.g. something like:
>
> class FlamingStick < ActiveRecord::Base
> belongs_to :extreme_juggler, :inverse => :flaming_sticks
> end
>
> class ExtremeJuggler < ActiveRecord::Base
> has_many :flaming_sticks, :inverse => :extreme_juggler
> end
>
> Although, for these simple cases it does seem like extra work that the
> framework should be able to work it out for you, so I don't think I'm hugely
> in favour of dropping the "magic" auto-detection.
>
> Anything else / anyone else used it and spotted stuff I haven't?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Muz
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
