On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM, DHH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Nothing prevents people, but ApplicationController is provided by the >> default Rails skeleton, and used by "script/generate controller". >> >> Having the same for ActiveRecord isn't entirely unreasonable, and wouldn't >> really require touching ActiveRecord -- just Rails generators. > > I've personally never felt the desire to include any such application- > specific behavior for all my Active Record models. And unlike Action > Controller, Active Record doesn't have a monopoly on the model space > in a Rails application (just think Active Resource or vanilla Ruby > objects). I frequently have non-AR models, so ApplicationModel would > be misleading.
I see your point. I often reopen AR::Base (or include something, it doesn't really matter). In my experience that's all sharing I need. ApplicationModel would suggest there's a root class for the M layer, and that's not going to work. Yeah. So upon reflection what I miss is a root for AR models in the application, and ApplicationModel is a misleading name for it. Reopening AR::Base does the job, but I'd just prefer a well-defined application specific class provided by the skeleton and generators so you know where people are going to put shared stuff, instead of carefully inspecting config/initializers and lib (say). Given the mismatch such a new root class would imply for the documentation I am unsure it is worth the trouble, I can't think of a good proposal for this at this moment. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
