On Nov 19, 4:50 pm, Dirkjan Bussink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008, at 23:32, MarkMT wrote:
>
> > BTW, I meant to mention - although I realize there's no fundamental
> > reason to view ActiveRecord as the default standard, there has been
> > some indication in the publicity for Datamapper that it's drop-in
> > compatible. See slide 9 from Yehuda's talk at RailsConf:
> >http://schulty.com/articles/datamapper_presented_at_railsconf08.html.
> > This seems a little misleading.
>
> Technically, that's not what it says. It says you can drop it into
> Rails by 1.0 and use it there, not that it's an actual replacement for
> ActiveRecord. Maybe the phrasing is open for questioning, but I'm
> pretty sure this us is what Yehuda means to say.
Ok thanks. That seems a little subtle to me. I think what you're
saying is you'll be able to use it in Rails, but you may not be able
to use it exactly the same way you would ActiveRecord. Anyhow, my
point was just to highlight that there is some somewhat ambiguous
messaging floating around.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"DataMapper" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
