One other thing I should have mentioned: the ActiveRecord aggregations interface is, IMHO, ripe for being incorporated into this same type of modeling. With the latest enhancements to constructors and converters, Aggregations can start to be viewed as a flexible interface to in-memory associations.
On Dec 5, 11:14 am, Chris Cruft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have a lot to offer to this subject except to say that in my > experience of building declarative bidirectional relationships in > Javascript (to proxy AR records!) I found that "promoting" the > associations to a full-blown model was quite clean. If done directly > in AR, I could imagine something like this: > > in app/models/dangerous_circus_tricks.rb > > class DangerousCircusTrick < ActiveRecord::AssociationModel > associate ExtremeJuggler, [FlamingSticks] > > def adequately_insured? > flaming_sticks < 3 || extreme_juggler.experience == :expert > end > end > > Complex relationships (particularly with bidirectionality) sometimes > warrant a dedicated model -even if the particulars of the ORM layer > don't require a dedicated table. I suspect that such an approach > would extend well into ActiveResource and other non-RDBMS stores. It > could even be used to model mixed associations (an AR record > associated with an ActiveRes model). > > On Dec 3, 10:59 am, "Murray Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2008/12/2 acechase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Dec 1, 12:14 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > As for the bi-directionality of in-memory AR objects, you should check > > > > > out the parental-control plugin, which while incomplete, covers quite > > > > > a bit of what is needed to support bi-directional associations in > > > > > rails: > > > > >http://github.com/h-lame/parental_control/tree/master > > > > > Nice! I'd love to see something along these lines baked right in to 2.3 > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers > > > > > Koz > > > > Three cheers to that! h-lame has done some really good work getting > > > the parental_control plugin working, but I think it would make > > > hammering out the trickier bits much easier if it was part of core. > > > Ah-ha! Now I understand why my little un-announced plugin suddenly got some > > watchers on github ;) > > > So, here seems like as good a place as any to thrash it out. What do we > > think I/we'd need to do to get it into core? As someone pointed out, it's > > pretty incomplete so I'm sure I've not covered all the edge cases, although > > I think it does a pretty good job of giving up if it can't find something > > that it thinks is the right inverse / reciprocal relationship (and we're > > using it in a production app here and it's yet to fall over). > > > The first natural extension to me would be to allow for :inverse options on > > association definitions that would allow for getting round trying to work it > > out, e.g. something like: > > > class FlamingStick < ActiveRecord::Base > > belongs_to :extreme_juggler, :inverse => :flaming_sticks > > end > > > class ExtremeJuggler < ActiveRecord::Base > > has_many :flaming_sticks, :inverse => :extreme_juggler > > end > > > Although, for these simple cases it does seem like extra work that the > > framework should be able to work it out for you, so I don't think I'm hugely > > in favour of dropping the "magic" auto-detection. > > > Anything else / anyone else used it and spotted stuff I haven't? > > > Cheers, > > > Muz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
