Hmmm.... This could lead to 60+ blank fields a record (for that table). Is that bad design, is there a better method I should explore? Or is this just normal and I should go with it?
On Mar 30, 12:23 am, Yong Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > yes, the Animal contains all the field and if you create a Feline instance > as feline, seeing_eye_dog will be left empty. > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:19 PM, brianp <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've done some reading on Single Table Inheritance. > > > I think I need something a little more though. > > > Classic example. > > > class Animal < ActiveRecord::Base > > // db fields: > > name: string > > age: int > > type: string > > breed: string > > end > > > class Feline < Animal > > // db fields: > > whisker_count: int > > end > > > class Canine < Animal > > // db fields: > > seeing_eye_dog: boolean > > end > > > So how do Canine and Feline inherit the fields from Animal although > > they don't require each others fields. Does the Animals table just > > contain all the fields but value can be null and only returns the > > available fields for that Model? > > > Cheers, > > > -- > > 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]<rubyonrails-talk%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en. > > -- 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.
