On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 05:09, Matt Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not trying to start a holy war, but isn't there *some* better way to do > this? API consistency is part of the goal for Rails 3, so couldn't an API > abstracting out some of these differences be created? I realize > that heavy-duty database stuff might need to fallback to a specific ORM, but > simple stuff like validations and callbacks shouldn't require maintaining a > multitude of nearly-identical codebases. >
So what you're suggesting is some thin layer on top of different ORMs that abstracts away things that are already similar between them? Isn't that, like, an ORM for an ORM? What you said there -- "pick their favorite ORM, and too bad for the users if it doesn't match" -- I think it will stay like this with most plugins. One can't expect that they can switch to another ORM in their application with all libraries and plugins continuing to work without modifications. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
