I think convert from string is not a good solution, because we will
not be able to use WHERE and ORDER BY queries over attributes (e.g.
ORDER BY string and number is strongly different).
Also I think we need some kind of Query Builder e.g. :orderby => "#
{attriDef.field}" or :condition=> "#{attriDef.field} = ?".
"attriDef.field" should return a field name dependent on attribute
type.On 12 авг, 00:43, jhaagmans <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 aug, 22:57, insect <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you Jaap! > > > I thought about it previousely, but one problem exists with with > > validation and strong types of attributes. As i understand > > ProductAttribute should have several number of fields for different > > types of values e.g. string, decimal, integer, boolean and etc. And > > there should be an accessor wich will give us value from field > > dependent on type wich was defined in ProductDefinition. Am I right? > > I have had a very long day and I now see that I may have > misunderstood: you might not even need a many-to-many relation, am I > right? There's always the possibility of just using has_many and > belongs_to between the product and attribute table. Especially if you > want to be able to, for example, destroy a product and its attributes, > you don't want to care too much about double entries. > > As for the string, integer, boolean etc.: that's true. There are a few > methods that come to mind and the first one is indeed creating fields > for all these possibilities and just looking which field contains a > value. You can evaluate whether it's a string, a boolean or an integer > using the field it's in. However, I'm unsure whether that's the most > robust solution. You could also store every value as a string and > convert it back in your model. > > > > > May be we can collaborate over this problem? > > Sure, you can always contact me directly, but I'm no expert yet, I'm > probably as much in the learning process as you are and the Rails > community you've found here is full of true experts. Let's have my > responses be evaluated by the community instead of taking them for > truth. That way we can both learn. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
