I think you're entirely right. But I struggle to find a meaningful, yet natural-feeling name. But besides the name, it still feels a tad awkward having the join model. It feels unnecessary, though the additional attributes require it.
Thanks for the response. On Mar 22, 3:48 pm, Frederick Cheung <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 22, 6:08 pm, ericindc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think this is right, it just feels odd initially building the middle > > layer model. My brain wants to just say Cubicle has_many :printers > > given that the Printer model is already defined and have Rails just > > know, sort of like HABTM, to look for the join in the > > cubicles_printers table. But I guess the difference comes in with the > > additional model attributes. > > I often find that has many through feels awkward when you haven't > quite pinned down what the join model is and have to name it something > like CubiclesPrinters (the classic example is having a join model > called Subscription between Person and Magazine rather than > MagazinesPeople). It obviously doesn't change what actually happens > but finding a good name makes the relationship feel more natural > rather than a hoop you jump through to make active record happy > > Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
