Thanks Neil, but I actually did want to keep activerecord there. I want to have some models based on a database or two that are not the "main" production database. I may have a main database later and will configure production and development dbs at that time, but I was looking for the cleanest way to run my app with prod and dev databases currently non-specified if possible.
-glenn On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Neal Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > i have this in an application that's not using activerecord: > > # require 'rails/all' > # require 'active_record/railtie' > require 'action_controller/railtie' > require 'action_mailer/railtie' > require 'active_resource/railtie' > require 'rails/test_unit/railtie' > > where a typical rails 3 application would have require 'rails/all'. the five > railtie require's underneath is are (were? this app is 3.0.0) equivalent to > 'rails/all', and i commented out the activerecord one. > > hope that helps! > > -n > > > On Feb 12, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Glenn Little wrote: > >> Is there a best practice for configuring a rails app without a >> production/development database? I don't want to turn off >> ActiveRecord completely since I may use one or another ancillary >> databases. But for the time being I don't want a "main" database (I >> may add one later). >> >> Rails fails to start if the production/development entries do not >> exist. Is it acceptable to just leave the default sqlite configs >> there? Seems a little inelegant, but maybe that's okay. >> >> Thanks... >> >> -glenn >> >> -- >> SD Ruby mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby > > -- > SD Ruby mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby > -- SD Ruby mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
