On Sep 25, 7:32 pm, Greg Willits <[email protected]> wrote: > Short version: > > Is there any way to override the ReadOnly behavior of AR3 when a SELECT > clause is specified? >
.readonly(false) ? Fred > I suspect I know why that change was made, but I have a Rails conversion > / legacy data situation where I really need those returned models to be > updatable. > > Long version: > > A collection of related apps sharing 4 databases, over 250 tables, with > some of those tables having over 200 fields. It was designed to suit dbm > philosophies not OO/ORM philosophies. From a Rails perspective they > should be broken down into smaller tables and a boatload of has_one > associations defined. But we can't do that. > > While I am converting this one app to Rails, others needing to use the > DB will not be converted just yet. So, I have to leave the schema 99.9% > alone until after all apps are Rails, then we can refactor the schema. > > I need a plan for evolving the models and schema over time. I'm hoping > to find ways to define small models that somehow use only a prtion of > those large tables. ActiveRecord probably won't be very good at that > given the way it reflects on the table schema. So, having SELECTS not be > read only is critical. > > I know I could use AR2 syntax, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. If > I do, then fine. > > I'm looking at DataMapper too as it might allow me to have many classes > which define the use of only a subset of the fields from the large > tables. > > Whichever of the two ORMs allows me the most efficient plan to evolve > the schema wins. > > -- gw > -- > 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.
