On Jan 15, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
> >> Or... we could wait to see what happens with ActiveORM, which seems >> to >> have been stubbed out in one of wycats's branches ;) >> >> Hopefully some common functionality can be defined, and we can all >> work together. > > ActiveORM is a rather grandiose name right now, but the intention is > for it to provide a set of hooks which allow other ORMs to expose 'AR > like' behaviour so things like form helpers can work transparently. > Over time this could extend to support other functionality. > > So for plugins which just work with 'stuff' they're given. Like 'this > thing is a user that authenticates', then backends can probably be > abstracted and we can probably rely on duck-typing for a big chunk of > it. > > But plugins which extend ActiveRecord or DataMapper, I can't see > anything possible there. Unless we simply make both the API and the > implementation identical, in which case why have multiple ORMs? > Variety and experimentation is great, that's what's going to lead to > interesting improvements. > I totally agree - obviously a plugin that's adding to and/or extending ActiveRecord won't be independent. But it should be possible for a plugin to add most run-of-the mill stuff (validations, basic associations, callbacks) without worrying about which ORM is under the hood. That's what I'm hoping will come out of the ActiveModel / ActiveORM efforts. --Matt Jones --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
