pepe wrote: > > I have thought about factoring out the name to a separate model: >
Most of this decision depends on how you intend to treat your Users and Customers. Perhaps you just have people, with a flag attribute on each, or people with related models of Customer-specific info and User-specific info. Is a User really different from a Person (will you track people who aren't users or customers - if so, then Person isn't abstract)? But only you know the answers to these questions. I think of names (first, last, middle, full, nickname, etc) as attributes of some model, not a model of its own... Sounds like you *could* have a base (abstract) class of Person, then do class Person < ActiveRecord::Base self.abstract_class = true # common methods go here end class User < Person # User table has all the fields it needs # User specific methods go here blah blah blah end class Customer < Person # Customer table has all the fields it needs # Customer specific methods go here blah blah blah end if Users and Customers really, really are different entities. You could also go the STI route... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- 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-t...@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.
