>From what I can recall from the RailsConf 2008 core group panel, the rationale is something along the lines that Active is given to a component/gem that can be used standalone and Action is given to component/gem which is dependent on other components. Though it doesn't quite work since ActiveRecord needs ActiveSupport. But most of the Action stuff is in ActionPack and can't be used standalone as such. ActionMailer depends on ActionController so that still holds.
But its a loose convention that is getting muddier and they said they won't be holding on to it religiously. Adam On Oct 29, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
