Hi,
why not add a named scope to messages:
named_scope :public, :conditions => {:public => true}
So you can call either:
user.messages
messages.public
or
user.messages.public
Is that what you're looking for?
Also, I think the standard for join tables is to name them in
alphabetical order, so messages_users.
Gavin
On Jun 21, 7:05 am, Alexander Trauzzi <rails-mailing-l...@andreas-
s.net> wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I'm looking to get some help answering a design problem I'm facing. I'm
> definitely familiar with how models house all the business logic, but
> when it RoR, I'm somewhat confused :)
>
> If I have Users, and they have a HABTM relationship to Messages:
>
> Users
> o ID
> o Name
>
> Messages
> o ID
> o Body
> o Public
>
> Users_Messages
> o User_ID
> o Message_ID
>
> What is the best practice to check two criteria for a kind of
> authorization check?
> The first being simply evaluating the HABTM relationship using
> user.messages.
> The second being that a user can see all messages where Public==true?
>
> Both are separate, yet I want to be able to generate one list from these
> two separate criteria in one call, mixing the results.
>
> Hopefully I'm clear enough, thanks in advance for any help!
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
