On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Tiago Franco wrote:
Hi, It is a know issue (at least it was until a couple of months ago) that STI doesn't work well on Hobo. For several times I felt the need of using such a feature but ended worked with single tables instead. I personally believe that this is something used very ofter in Rails applications and that Hobo would benefit if such feature is supported. What are the thoughts on this? I can try to find out the root cause for the issue and submit a patch.
We finally got 90+% of the issues with STI wrapped up for 1.0, and I'm using it in a couple places in production code.
That said, there are still a number of "pain points" with respect to STI that would be great to sort out:
- lifecycles; the current implementation works, but you typically wind up having to repeat parts of the lifecycle that should be inherited if you want to make changes. There's also no clean way to "un-declare" a lifecycle step, if (for instance) you wanted *almost* every STI descendant to have the same behavior except for one.
- #559 is mostly a documentation issue; as it points out, calling hobo_model in an STI subclass is... bad.
- superclass chaining is not reliably implemented, so you can't rely on (for instance) declaring a model_controller for the parent class and having object_url work correctly for subclasses.
There are probably more, but that's what I could think of off the top of my head...
--Matt Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo Users" 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/hobousers?hl=en.
