On Mon, November 28, 2011 12:02, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: > > So, let me ask you the opposite. Why not supporting FKC? >
Define, precisely, what you mean by support. Is it just the ability to set a foreign key constraint in the AR migration? Or, do you desire more pervasive support for Fks in AR? If so then what would this support comprise? If the prevailing RoR application type is a mostly read only environment, with few inserts having limited cross referencing and fewer still updates, then exactly what benefits would integral AR foreign key support provide to the typical RoR application user? In my own case, since I always use PostgreSQL and since the Red Hill plugin to add Fk support to AR in has been around almost from the outset, I have never had to do without Fk support in RoR. Basically, if you know that you need Fk support in an RoR application then you can get it. And if you do not know that you need it then you will not use it anyway. Note, I am not arguing against including Fk support in AR. I have long considered its absence a real defect. But I certainly appreciate and respect the core team's p.o.v. on the subject given the number of backend options they must consider if they do decide to include it as a standard feature. One has to conserve resources for work on the essentials before the nice-to-haves are addressed. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:[email protected] Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- 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.
