I always assumed that AR::Base and AC::Base's name came from the concept of an abstract base class. I think ::Base is a fine name for the top-most superclass in a module, but that might just be a side effect of previous experience.
-Trek On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Manfred Stienstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Hi, > > One of the things about the Rails code that people tend to frown upon > is the Base class. I was wondering if anyone ever considered replacing > it with with a class name that reflects the actual function of the > class? Maybe we could even use ActiveRecord as a 'base class' for > models? Staying backwards compatible for a while – at least for > application code – should be possible. > > http://gist.github.com/15813 > > Manfred > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
