"Maurício Linhares" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What you could do is write a simple persistence solution that "looks like" > active record but using a simpler model (based on your ideas), removing all > the > SQL and things that resemble a relational database. You could take a look at > ActiveResource and the way it behaves to get an idea about how you could build > your API. >
Hi Maurício, Thanks for the suggestion. The problem with using something aside from ActiveRecord is that you lose all of the view/form helpers, and (i think) you also lose the has_many helper methods as well, so you'd ultimately lose a large portion of the utility of the Rails framework. It seems that IMO all of these helpers should be tied to a Module say RailsModel or something which ActiveRecord, ActiveResource, etc... would include. I don't know how if this would introduce too much indirection into the Rails framework, but it would make it much easier to introduce alternative storage mechanisms. I don't know much about Merb, but maybe it already contains something similar? Thanks -- Eric > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Eric Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I hoping to find/write an ActiveRecord backend which stores each record > as a file in a directory, rather than as a row in a table in a database. > I'm not concerned about scaling or concurrency issues. My questions > are... > > 1) Does such a backend exist? > 2) Is there some logical inconsistency between the behavior of > ActiveRecord and the limits of a filesystem? > 3) Where should implementation of such a backend begin? should I define > an AbstractAdapter? or should I scrap ActiveRecord all together, and > try to use another class as the base of my models? > > In terms of what this would look like, I'm thinking that each record > would have a string id, which would serve as the file name, either a > single text field aside from the ID and would be equal to the entire > file contents, or allow for multiple attributes, and save them into the > file in the form of a YAML hash. > > The use case which got me thinking of this was the desire to have an > rails application which users would often run locally on their own > machine, but with which they could share (active)records with other > users running other copies of the application on their machines. If the > records were saved as files, then > > 1) it would be easy for users to browse/inspect the records outside of > the application > 2) the sharing and merging of the records across instances could use > some existing distributed VC system like GIT > > the actual application could fairly easily wrap some simplifying UI > elements around something like git which could handle the pushing > pulling and merging of actual records between instances all the while > tracking who made what changes when. > > Please don't hesitate to tell me if you think there are reasons why this > wouldn't/shouldn't work. Thanks -- Eric > > > > > > > -- > Maurício Linhares > http://alinhavado.wordpress.com/ (pt-br) | http://blog.codevader.com/ (en) > João Pessoa, PB, +55 83 8867-7208 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
