Wow, An actual explanation. This has been bugging me too. The current naming just 'sounds right' but that isn't a good reason. I'm not sure if it's just because I'm used to it, but ActionRecord sounds wrong, likewise ActiveController.
-Adam On 30/10/2009, at 12:45 PM, Adam Meehan wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
