On 10 May 2012 04:14, Sebastião G. Ferreira Júnior <sebastor...@gmail.com> wrote: > After seeing DestroyAllSoftware screencasts from Gary Bernhardt, > reading this post > http://solnic.eu/2011/08/01/making-activerecord-models-thin.html , > talking with some people about the issue and based on my personal > experience, I found that they're all right. So I'm on a new project > trying to follow this path in making AR Models just a thin layer to > the DB, specially responsible for db persistance. > > The thing is, that I have to move the business logic to "application > models" that will live somewhere else (for example, app/libs). But I'm > really struggling to find a way to do that. Basically, the problem is: > - my OO thinking is too "ActiveRecord Driven". My first thinking was > doing models that wraps in a 1 by 1 scenario an AR model. For example, > for a User AR model, I should have a User "application" model, that > will do the business logic related. This is appearing to be really > wrong to me. There are clear advantages but now I'm free of rails AR > and can create abstract concepts free from the framework bindings.
You can just put the application models in the models folder as normal. Remember that models do not have to be AR based. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
