Johan De Klerk wrote: > I may be completely out of line here... but > > "WTF? Don't you use migrations? That's what they're for." > > made me think that migrations aren't the be all and end all.
How did what I wrote lead you to that conclusion? > There are > ALOT > of things you cant do with migrations when it comes to database specific > deployment. eg. triggers, user defined functions, even views... Migrations can do all of these things. The migration framework is extensible, as witness rails_sql_views and the various foreign key plugins, and as a last resort, you can put literal SQL in the migrations. > and even > things like index creation is limited when using Postgres and MySQL or > even > SQLServer. What about index creation doesn't Rails let you do? > > I know and realize Rails is opinionated software... but IMHO the > community > could benefit from using the power these dbms solutions offer. Yes. But I don't think putting large amounts of logic in the DB is a good idea. Key constraints are one thing; big stored procedures (such as I used to write) are quite another. > How about > a > DSL type plugin - not only enhancing migrations, but extending > activerecord > to embrace the DBMS rather than treating it as "just a storage > mechanism". Check out Hobo's "rich types". And I think there's a case to be made that ActiveRecord *does* embrace the DB; it's just that a lot of Rails developers don't. > > Sorry for hijacking here, just my two cents... > Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://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.
