I appreciate everyone sharing their own perspective. It's insightful. Trevor, I absolutely agree with you in saying that "convention over configuration" applies to a universal solution. But how does what I'm proposing take away from that? Namespaces should by no means be an enforced axiom, but it should be one that exists for a particular scenario, which in my opinion can work for most.
Rick, that sounds great! Thats exactly what I'm talking about here. So it looks like there is already some overlap. What would the class definitions for customer.rb and tag.rb look like in edge? ... I'm assuming: class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base end # table => "customers" class Customer::Tag < ActiveRecord::Base end # table => "customer_tags" Regards, Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
