Yup, ActiveRecord is from Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Architecture: http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/activeRecord.html
Couldn't say for certain it was his idea, perhaps he just documented it. Domain objects with persistence logic can be a 'loaded' (tee hee) topic -- depending on context of course, it's not necessarily a great idea, though it's not too messy for the sort of thing one would use Rails for. On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Dave Bolton <[email protected]> wrote: >> This has been bugging me for a while: why is there a difference in the >> Action/Active naming convention that Rails uses? Why is there ActiveRecord >> and ActionController? Why not ActionRecord or ActiveController? Neither >> Action or Active are particularly descriptive. > > ActiveRecord is based on a Martin Fowler pattern, I believe (can't > remember the book, was it Enterprise Patterns?). Whereas the Action > in ActionController is just a common term for web development... > "actions" were used in Struts and probably many other web frameworks > before Rails. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Chris Lloyd > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> This has been bugging me for a while: why is there a difference in the >> Action/Active naming convention that Rails uses? Why is there ActiveRecord >> and ActionController? Why not ActionRecord or ActiveController? Neither >> Action or Active are particularly descriptive. >> I tried Googling but nothing came up so perhaps somebody closer to DHH can >> chip in an answer? >> Cheers! >> Chris >> >> -- >> chrislloyd.com.au >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
