Just my two cents here. Do not waste time trying to apply code concepts (factories, repositories, etc.) from the Eric Evans book, if you think you are DDD only by using those, you are doing it wrong. DDD is much more about Crunching Knowledge, Ubiquitous Language, Bounded Contexts and converging these to express your domain on your model always evolving to a deeper insight.
DDD is about tackling complexity on your software. Isn't writing a lot of code just to implement *Persistence Ignorance* increasing the complexity of what you have? Enjoy what ActiveRecord gives you in a healthy way. On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:14 PM Laerti Papa <laertis.pap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for your reply, > > I understand that it is against the active record philosophy, it would be > nice though to support both patterns and let the developer choose. I end up > writing a lot of code every time I use AR only as the persistence on top of > a repo instance. > > > Thanks again. > LP > > > On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:24:11 AM UTC+1, William T. Nelson wrote: >> >> Building this capability into Rails would be contrary to the current >> project philosophy, so don't expect it soon. >> >> However, Ryan Bigg has been working on similar features recently. See his >> reports here: https://ryanbigg.com/2020/02/rom-and-dry-showcase-part-1 >> >> On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 9:39:47 PM UTC-6, Laerti Papa wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> thank you for your effort so far and for your contribution. >>> >>> I've been playing around with DDD concepts lately and trying to apply >>> them to Rails. It's been super annoying and frustrating trying to fight the >>> framework to apply them especially when it comes to **Persistence >>> ignorance**. It would be nice if the framework supported that out of the >>> box either with a DSL likeish framework or configuration files. Also to >>> have a more safe typing approach regarding data attributes I have to either >>> implement it myself or use existing libraries like dry-rb or something. >>> >>> I was curious why so many years we don't decouple active record into two >>> pieces. One to keep it as is. Second, allow users to decouple entities and >>> data access objects and have a framework that will support them in better >>> domain modeling without having to write much-supporting code to do so. >>> >>> I would appreciate any thoughts. >>> >>> Best >>> LP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-core/ec331d07-d81a-45eb-a9e8-eb43728be750%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-core/ec331d07-d81a-45eb-a9e8-eb43728be750%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rubyonrails-core/CAA2Dq%2BMK5MK-tiYpvABbh%3DtV%3DVfdxkS9nhe-JwEWjmLitbWipg%40mail.gmail.com.
