Makes sense, thanks. On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Michael Koziarski <[email protected]>wrote:
> > So to clarify, as a matter of implementation, ORMs seeking compatibility > > with Rails should never use proxy objects for belongs_to or has_one > > associations? > > It's not really a rails thing, it's people expecting their library to > use by ruby developers expecting idiomatic ruby code to work. > > if some_object.something > > my_thingy = some_object.something || SOME_DEFAULT > > These two cases are pretty fundamental, and while the null object > pattern is nice and clean, the fact that they can never work right > should be a sign it's not a great idea to try it. > > -- > Cheers > > Koz > > -- > 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]<rubyonrails-core%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > -- 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.
