craig duncan wrote:
> Quoted from ... ruby/gems/1.8/doc/activerecord-1.0.0/rdoc/index.html:
> 
>  > Active Record Object-relation mapping put on rails
>  >
>  > Active Record connects business objects and database tables . . .
> ^^^^^^
> 
> Why does it connect "business" objects? Does this mean it wouldn't be 
> able to connect "non-commercial" or "NGO" objects? What about artistic 
> objects? Would activerecord be completely useless for a database 
> containing info on my personal CD collection?

The word "business" is meant to distinguish those objects from the code 
devoted to , say, infrastructure.  In other words, they hold the code 
that lets your application go about its specific business, be that 
selling widgets, rendering nice pictures, emitting strange sounds, or 
cataloging your personal CD collection.  The business objects typically 
sit on top of the framework or infrastructure objects.
> 
> Please enlighten me as to how something so technologically (not to 
> mention ideologically) limiting worked its way into the fundamental 
> design of this library.

It's a common term used among many "professional software developers"; 
i.e, people who write software for businesses.  There are no doubt other 
ways to name chunks of code so that you can define and maintain a 
reasonably clean partition between the plumbing and dishwasher.


James