On Thursday 14 May 2009, Jeremy Evans wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Michael Schuerig <mich...@schuerig.de> wrote: > > ARec needs to take a step back from concrete SQL strings, toward > > abstract models of the various SQL statements. This (huge) step > > would allow for better modularity, customizability, and easier > > expression of programmer intention. I have no idea how to introduce > > a change such as this as it would surely void backward > > compatibility. Sigh, only dreaming. > > Sequel already does that, why not just use it if that's what you > want?
Inertia? I've had a quick look and Sequel is indeed appealing. I'll have a closer look tomorrow. As Josh points out in another reply, ARec is heading in a similar direction. I'm wondering whether there's a chance to join forces. Michael -- Michael Schuerig mailto:mich...@schuerig.de http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
