Well said, Pedro. I don’t think there’s much interest in adding the repository pattern to Active Record.
-- Kasper On 18 Feb 2020, 15.28 +0100, Pedro Fernandes Steimbruch <pedrofsteimbr...@gmail.com>, wrote: > 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. > > -- > 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. 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. -- 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/bbfc9c27-098f-418f-9434-ba7d373a6429%40Spark.
