On 6 May 2011, at 15:44, Alexey Muranov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill, i see no theoretical difficulty in implementing what i want, i was
> just wondering why it is not implemented in Rails (whether it is
> considered a "bad style" for some reason).
>
> The same way as one does
>
> class Payment < ActiveRecord::Base
> belongs_to :purchase, :polymorphic => true
> end
>
> (and then one can use payment.purchase regardless of the type of
> purchase)
> it would be natural to expect that
>
> class Payment < ActiveRecord::Base
> has_one :purchase, :polymorphic => true
> end
>
> also be possible, the difference is in storing the foreign key on the
> other side.
How would activerecord know what tables to look at?
Fred
> Maybe it is considered redundant because one can do
>
> class Payment < ActiveRecord::Base
> has_one :ticket_purchase
> has_one :membership_purchase
> end
>
> but this way one has to first look up payment.purchase_type, and then
> use either payment.ticket_purchase or payment.membership_purchase
> accordingly.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexey.
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
