Can you please show the database layout you have in mind that this would map to?
The normal way would be: User (belongs_to :address) - id - address_id Address (has_many :users) - id If you want the user to not know about the address, you could do: User Addressable - address_id - object_id - object_type Address and then user and address would both use have_* :through. On Mar 5, 5:13 pm, "Alexey M." <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, I am re-opening this again, sorry :). > > I have just read in RailsGuides > (http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html) > about the proper way to choose between belongs_to and has_one. > From this point of view, something like belongs_to_many seems to be > really missing, but i do not know if maybe there is a better name, and > how to call the other side of the association (has_a ?). > I am talking about something like this: > > class Member < ActiveRecord::Base > has_an :address > end > > class Address < ActiveRecord::Base > belongs_to_many :members > end > > Different members can have the same address, if they are a couple for > example. > > This can me implemented the same way as has_and_belongs_to_many, except > that in the joint table the Foreign Key for Members must be required to > be unique. > > An Address can be then automatically deleted when the last Member living > at that address is deleted. > > The advantage over [belongs_to, has_many] is the same as for has_one > over belongs_to: the Members table does not need to "know" about the > Addresses table. > > -- > 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.
