hi, i have to admit that most of my frustrations with rails came from activerecord and the way it''s linked my OOP approach. i had a look at Nitro and i have to admit that there''s a lot of good ideas with the OG library. is there any plan to make AR a little bit more like OG? olivier
What specifically would you like to see? On 6/28/05, olivier Hericord <olivier.hericord.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> hi, > > i have to admit that most of my frustrations with rails came from > activerecord and the way it''s linked my OOP approach. > > i had a look at Nitro and i have to admit that there''s a lot of good > ideas with the OG library. > > is there any plan to make AR a little bit more like OG? > > olivier > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
On Jun 28, 2005, at 12:04 PM, olivier Hericord wrote:> i have to admit that most of my frustrations with rails came from > activerecord and the way it''s linked my OOP approach.You are free to use Action Pack without Active Record. Indeed, Instiki uses Madeleine. The prevaylence approach permits far more freedom in your object-oriented design than having to deal with an object/relational mapper. In my experience, once you''ve swallowed the impedance mismatch (a hurdle for anyone persisting objects to a relational database) and auditioned the various ORM available, you''ll find that Active Record is a clear, pragmatic light in a sea of confused and over-architected data mappers.> i had a look at Nitro and i have to admit that there''s a lot of good > ideas with the OG library. > > is there any plan to make AR a little bit more like OG?No, though you may discover that the reverse is true. jeremy