If you write something that "looks like" active record, the view/form methods woudn't change, but the association methods (has_one, has_many and belongs_to) are something deeply rooted into active record and SQL, they can't be reused in another context.
And, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), ActiveRecord was built with the expectation that there is a relational database that understands SQL at the other side, so it isn't really a "possibility" to do what you're looking for unless you start to build your own relational database. Also, Merb is just a web framework, it doesn't have anything like that. On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Eric Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
