Jamis Buck wrote:

> Well, but that's just ActiveRecord, right? Not Rails as a whole. You  
> can use any other ORM you want with Rails, if AR doesn't fit your  style 
> of thinking.

Yes, I would imagine.  But then one is no longer really dealing with 
Rails but with, well, some custom arrangement of libraries.  Which may 
be the better way to look at it anyway, even if one uses AR.


> 
> For me, I really like that AR doesn't clutter my model classees with  
> extraneous definitions. I like looking at a two or three line model  
> class, that only defines the behavior of the class and the foreign  key 
> relationships. Others (like yourself, James) obviously prefer the  model 
> to be everything, including the explicit definition of the data  itself. 
> And that's cool.

Clutter? Interesting.  When I'm looking to see what values I can obtain 
from an object passed to a view, or what it expects passed to the 
constructor when  instantiated, th AR-based class code won't tell me.  I 
have to go look at a .sql file or open up some DB admin tool to locate 
such extraneous details.

Worse, if I go change object behavior, I have to bounce back to some 
other file or application to ensure I'm making changes in all the right 
places. (I know this has all been discussed on the Rails list; different 
strokes, and all that.)

> 
> But yah, ActiveRecord does not do the Og-thang and allow you to  define 
> your schema in your model (at least, not so that the database  can be 
> created from the model).

Which is basically what I was looking for.  But I have to go poke around 
with migrations, because it may make a few Rails things simpler.

Thanks,

James


-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys