Active Record in its own box. The problem is that you want to use something specific to Rail, the database taks.
As you can see in the [filename of the database task]( https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/3-2-stable/activerecord/lib/active_record/railties/databases.rake) it should be only loaded when you are using rails and this is why it is inside the railties folder. You can use migrations without use these tasks, but you will have to make your own task. This is a fair cost to those that don't want to use the railties infrastructure. Rafael Mendonça França http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca https://github.com/rafaelfranca On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM, ChuckE <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I found a special ActiveRecord case which messes a bit one requirement. I > have two applications sharing the same DB. For this reason we found wise to > share the DB mapping logic among both applications, namely, our > activerecord models. After extracting them into a gem and bundling them > into the two applications, everything went well. > > Now, we found out it would also be wise to share the migrations, schema, > config, etc., maybe "delegate" such rake tasks as create migration and > schema dump to that shared repo, which would contain also this part of the > logic. Thing is, the use of the Rails class throughout all the rake tasks > concerning migrations make that impossible. Specially the load_config rake > task, which is apparently run before each and every rake task. This one > basically overwrites any rewrite I might have had done on the > ActiveRecord::Migrator.migration_paths with the local 'db/migrate' folder. > Which in my case would be empty in both application trees and full on the > shared repo. Because of that, I can't wisely set a new migration path > without entering a world of hurt and non-stop monkey patch. Which I'll > avoid by now. But basically, that load_config rake_task is messing up my > plans. > > Another concern is the use of the Rails class itself. It could be the case > that I would be talking about two rails applications, but one of them > happens to be Sinatra, which doesn't own (or shouldn't own) any Rails > class. I've seen how they extended the migrations part for their version of > active record. Also a very limiting solution. So, I guess the solution will > probably not come from the frameworks readapting their needs to > activerecord, but activerecord having a consistent solution in its box, > making it then more extendable for other frameworks (I don't know how Merb > handles this, I might investigate into that). > > So, I'd like to open the debate on the subject. Or maybe it has been > opened previously. I'd much like to hear your opinion. > > Regards, > Tiago > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/o5xL8FsQqZsJ. > 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. > -- 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.
