On Wed, May 9, 2012 13:35, Maurizio Casimirri wrote: > > Migrations are meaningless outside active record (again the pattern > not the gem).. we can't enforce a migration centered approach in an > ORM agnostic environment.. perhaps to me it seems that is more > comfortable to make ActiveRecord to support properties inside models > that to ask Mongoid and other 500 ORMs around to dump fields and > support migrations.
This statement is not factual. Migrations, in the sense of being any systematic method of aggregating changes to a database schema over time and generating the necessary DDL, certainly can possess meaning outside of whatever method of data representation (AR, DM, IM, QO, ad nauseam) is chosen by an OO system designer. It is entirely conceivable that two or more separate projects employing AR (the pattern) could reference the same database and table and each consider only the subset of the schema necessary for their specific function. In such a case, under your proposal, which implementation should provide the migration? -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- 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.
