Rob Biedenharn wrote: [...] > > > Reusing code that exists and WORKS is typically a very sensible idea.
Quite so. The bad idea here is using Rails only for the presentation tier. If the OP is really dead-set on using Rails and on reusing the Java data access framework, then the right thing to do is to write an AR interface to the data access framework. > Assuming that the others system from which the data comes will remain, > creating ruby models that wrap the existing data source is fine. (And > avoids duplication!) With the separation of modules in Rails 3, you > should even make those models behave sufficiently like an ActiveRecord- > based model with relative ease. Right. That's the *only* way in which I'd even consider using Rails in the OP's situation: writing an AR interface to the existing data access framework, if AR cannot replace it altogether. But it really sounds to me like the OP is making his own life difficult by trying to shove Rails in somewhere that it doesn't really fit. > > -Rob > > Rob Biedenharn > http://agileconsultingllc.com > [email protected] > http://gaslightsoftware.com > [email protected] 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.
