Rails - Oct 2006 - (ActiveRecord) Why is there no "belongs_to_many"?

Hi all,

My apologies, but I am just starting with Rails.  I''m curious as to why
there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the current need to
contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing with more
steps.

Any ideas?

Regards,
Mike.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi --

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, gberz3 wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> My apologies, but I am just starting with Rails.  I''m curious as
to why
> there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the current need to
> contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing with more
> steps.
If you have an X that belongs to a Y, that means you''ll have a y_id
field in the xs (plural of x) table.

If the X belongs to more than one Y, you have to have multiple y_id
fields for each record.  Since the xs table can only have one y_id
column, you have to put the multiple y_ids in a separate table.  Each
row in that table also gets the corresponding id key from the xes
table.


David

-- 
                   David A. Black |
dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org
Author of "Ruby for Rails"   [1] | Ruby/Rails training &
consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB''s Weblog)        [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc.  
[4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com    | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

gberz3 wrote:
> I''m curious as to why
> there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the current need to
> contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing with more
> steps.
There is. It''s called has_and_belongs_to_many. :)

Besides that, "belonging to many" is merely the flip side of having 
many. You can''t truly belong to many without also having many.

Have implies a direct ownership, and belongs implies being owned. HABTM 
goes both directions.

-- 
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Check out this diagram:

http://mboffin.com/stuff/ruby-on-rails-data-relationships.png

It might make the relatioships a bit clearer.

--Dylan


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi --

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Daniel Waite wrote:
>
> gberz3 wrote:
>> I''m curious as to why
>> there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the current need
to
>> contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing with more
>> steps.
>
> There is. It''s called has_and_belongs_to_many. :)
>
> Besides that, "belonging to many" is merely the flip side of
having
> many. You can''t truly belong to many without also having many.
They''re not symmetrical, though: an object can have_many even if each
of the "havees" doesn''t belong to many.


David

-- 
                   David A. Black |
dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org
Author of "Ruby for Rails"   [1] | Ruby/Rails training &
consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB''s Weblog)        [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc.  
[4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com    | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

has_one|many creates methods based on the assumption that the other 
model has a field referencing this model, and belongs_to creates methods 
based on the assumption that this model has a field referencing the 
other model. So a belongs_to_many macro would create methods based on 
the assumption that this model has (infinitely) many fields referencing 
the other model -- which is more easily implemented with a join table, 
thus habtm or has_many :through.

-- 
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi Ashley,

Ashley Thomas wrote:
> has_one|many creates methods based on the assumption that the other 
> model has a field referencing this model, and belongs_to creates methods 
> based on the assumption that this model has a field referencing the 
> other model. So a belongs_to_many macro would create methods based on 
> the assumption that this model has (infinitely) many fields referencing 
> the other model -- which is more easily implemented with a join table, 
> thus habtm or has_many :through.
Nice explanation.

Best regards,
Bill

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I understand, but what if I don''t necessarily want "both
ways"?  For
instance, in the Oreilly book "Ruby on Rails: Up and Running" they
have
the example of a Slideshow.  The Slideshow has_many Slides, and Photos
has_many Slides, but Slides belongs_to both Slideshow and Photos.
Despite how the items are defined, in English this doesn''t seem
correct.  It seems more likely that, if nothing else, Photos
"belongs_to_many" Slides, more than Photos "has_many"
Slides, like so:

Slideshow   has_many  Slides
Slide  has_one Photo
Slide  belongs_to Slideshow
Photo belongs_to_many Slides

I don''t see any need for HABTM, simply, BTM.  What am I missing?

Thanks,
Mike


Daniel Waite wrote:
> gberz3 wrote:
> > I''m curious as to why
> > there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the current need
to
> > contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing with more
> > steps.
>
> There is. It''s called has_and_belongs_to_many. :)
>
> Besides that, "belonging to many" is merely the flip side of
having
> many. You can''t truly belong to many without also having many.
>
> Have implies a direct ownership, and belongs implies being owned. HABTM
> goes both directions.
> 
> -- 
> 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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi --

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, gberz3 wrote:
>
> Daniel Waite wrote:
>> gberz3 wrote:
>>> I''m curious as to why
>>> there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the current
need to
>>> contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing with
more
>>> steps.
>>
>> There is. It''s called has_and_belongs_to_many. :)
>>
>> Besides that, "belonging to many" is merely the flip side of
having
>> many. You can''t truly belong to many without also having many.
>>
>> Have implies a direct ownership, and belongs implies being owned. HABTM
>> goes both directions.
>>
>
> I understand, but what if I don''t necessarily want "both
ways"?  For
> instance, in the Oreilly book "Ruby on Rails: Up and Running"
they have
> the example of a Slideshow.  The Slideshow has_many Slides, and Photos
> has_many Slides, but Slides belongs_to both Slideshow and Photos.
> Despite how the items are defined, in English this doesn''t seem
> correct.  It seems more likely that, if nothing else, Photos
> "belongs_to_many" Slides, more than Photos "has_many"
Slides, like so:
>
> Slideshow   has_many  Slides
> Slide  has_one Photo
> Slide  belongs_to Slideshow
> Photo belongs_to_many Slides
>
> I don''t see any need for HABTM, simply, BTM.  What am I missing?
I''m not sure I follow.  It looks like it''s just one-to-many,
not
many-to-many, so it''s not a real test of whether habtm might be
useful.

Remember too that the "have/belong" wording is really for the purpose
of establishing object-relational mappings, not fully documenting the
application.  The available relations -- has_one, has_many, etc. --
will never accurately describe what''s going on in every domain. 
You''d
really want to say:

   class Slide < AR::Base
     has_been_made_from :photo

or something like that, but we can''t :-)  The have/belong thing is a
simple mechanism that really just bootstraps a more semantically rich
one.

I also don''t see a way to implement belongs_to_many, in database terms
consistent with ActiveRecord''s logic.  Where would you put the foreign
keys?


David

-- 
                   David A. Black |
dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org
Author of "Ruby for Rails"   [1] | Ruby/Rails training &
consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB''s Weblog)        [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc.  
[4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com    | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Basically, I''d say this:

class Photo < AR::Base
      belongs_to_many :slides
end

. . .and perhaps the following if AR couldn''t figure it out

class Slide < AR::Base
      has_one :photo
end

. . .and AR should know to put the FK into Slides.  Does that make
sense?

Mike

dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, gberz3 wrote:
>
> >
> > Daniel Waite wrote:
> >> gberz3 wrote:
> >>> I''m curious as to why
> >>> there is no "belongs_to_many" as opposed to the
current need to
> >>> contruct a relationship that basically means the same thing
with more
> >>> steps.
> >>
> >> There is. It''s called has_and_belongs_to_many. :)
> >>
> >> Besides that, "belonging to many" is merely the flip
side of having
> >> many. You can''t truly belong to many without also having
many.
> >>
> >> Have implies a direct ownership, and belongs implies being owned.
HABTM
> >> goes both directions.
> >>
> >
> > I understand, but what if I don''t necessarily want "both
ways"?  For
> > instance, in the Oreilly book "Ruby on Rails: Up and
Running" they have
> > the example of a Slideshow.  The Slideshow has_many Slides, and Photos
> > has_many Slides, but Slides belongs_to both Slideshow and Photos.
> > Despite how the items are defined, in English this doesn''t
seem
> > correct.  It seems more likely that, if nothing else, Photos
> > "belongs_to_many" Slides, more than Photos
"has_many" Slides, like so:
> >
> > Slideshow   has_many  Slides
> > Slide  has_one Photo
> > Slide  belongs_to Slideshow
> > Photo belongs_to_many Slides
> >
> > I don''t see any need for HABTM, simply, BTM.  What am I
missing?
>
> I''m not sure I follow.  It looks like it''s just
one-to-many, not
> many-to-many, so it''s not a real test of whether habtm might be
> useful.
>
> Remember too that the "have/belong" wording is really for the
purpose
> of establishing object-relational mappings, not fully documenting the
> application.  The available relations -- has_one, has_many, etc. --
> will never accurately describe what''s going on in every domain. 
You''d
> really want to say:
>
>    class Slide < AR::Base
>      has_been_made_from :photo
>
> or something like that, but we can''t :-)  The have/belong thing is
a
> simple mechanism that really just bootstraps a more semantically rich
> one.
>
> I also don''t see a way to implement belongs_to_many, in database
terms
> consistent with ActiveRecord''s logic.  Where would you put the
foreign
> keys?
>
>
> David
>
> --
>                    David A. Black |
dblack-TKXtfPMJ4Ozk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org
> Author of "Ruby for Rails"   [1] | Ruby/Rails training &
consultancy [3]
> DABlog (DAB''s Weblog)        [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc.
[4]
> [1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
> [2] http://dablog.rubypal.com    | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hello, I am re-opening this again, sorry :).

I have just read in RailsGuides (
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html )
about the proper way to choose between belongs_to and has_one.
From this point of view, something like belongs_to_many seems to be
really missing, but i do not know if maybe there is a better name, and
how to call the other side of the association (has_a ?).
I am talking about something like this:

class Member < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_an :address
end

class Address < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to_many :members
end

Different members can have the same address, if they are a couple for
example.

This can me implemented the same way as has_and_belongs_to_many, except
that in the joint table the Foreign Key for Members must be required to
be unique.

An Address can be then automatically deleted when the last Member living
at that address is deleted.

The advantage over [belongs_to, has_many] is the same as for has_one
over belongs_to: the Members table does not need to "know" about the
Addresses table.

-- 
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Alexey M.
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hello, I am re-opening this again, sorry :).
>
> I have just read in RailsGuides (
> http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html )
> about the proper way to choose between belongs_to and has_one.
> From this point of view, something like belongs_to_many seems to be
> really missing, but i do not know if maybe there is a better name, and
> how to call the other side of the association (has_a ?).
> I am talking about something like this:
>
> class Member < ActiveRecord::Base
>  has_an :address
> end
>
> class Address < ActiveRecord::Base
>  belongs_to_many :members
> end
>
> Different members can have the same address, if they are a couple for
> example.
>
> This can me implemented the same way as has_and_belongs_to_many, except
> that in the joint table the Foreign Key for Members must be required to
> be unique.
>
> An Address can be then automatically deleted when the last Member living
> at that address is deleted.
>
> The advantage over [belongs_to, has_many] is the same as for has_one
> over belongs_to: the Members table does not need to "know" about
the
> Addresses table.
>
The thing is, this would just duplicate existing associations; I don''t
see
how it''s needed. The relationship you describe above can be written
much
simpler (no join table at all) by just having User belongs_to :address, and
Address has_many :users.

If it''s the readability of the code that you want, you can always do
things
like

class Address << ActiveRecord::Base

  has_many :residents, :class_name => "User"

end

class User << ActiveRecord::Base

  belongs_to :address, :foreign_key => "resident_id"

end

For many-to-many, I really tend to favor has_many :through associations from
both sides, as they''re more flexible.

But honestly; I don''t think belongs_to_many is missing. Just my 2¢. :-)

> --
> 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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
> 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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Can you please show the database layout you have in mind that this
would map to?

The normal way would be:

User (belongs_to :address)
  - id
  - address_id

Address (has_many :users)
  - id

If you want the user to not know about the address, you could do:

User

Addressable
  - address_id
  - object_id
  - object_type

Address

and then user and address would both use have_* :through.

On Mar 5, 5:13 pm, "Alexey M."
<li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Hello, I am re-opening this again, sorry :).
>
> I have just read in RailsGuides
(http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html)
> about the proper way to choose between belongs_to and has_one.
> From this point of view, something like belongs_to_many seems to be
> really missing, but i do not know if maybe there is a better name, and
> how to call the other side of the association (has_a ?).
> I am talking about something like this:
>
> class Member < ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_an :address
> end
>
> class Address < ActiveRecord::Base
>   belongs_to_many :members
> end
>
> Different members can have the same address, if they are a couple for
> example.
>
> This can me implemented the same way as has_and_belongs_to_many, except
> that in the joint table the Foreign Key for Members must be required to
> be unique.
>
> An Address can be then automatically deleted when the last Member living
> at that address is deleted.
>
> The advantage over [belongs_to, has_many] is the same as for has_one
> over belongs_to: the Members table does not need to "know" about
the
> Addresses table.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Thanks for your replies.

Probably there are ways around (i have not finished reading the
RailsGuides yet), but what seems to be nice to have is:

1. not to store any foreign key in Members table,
2. have a kind of (:dependent => ...) option that would allow to
automatically delete an Address when the last Member living at that
address is deleted.

Adam, was your question addressed to me or to Phil?

-- 
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

David A. Black wrote in post #712598:
> Hi --
>
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Shawn .. wrote:
>
>
> The has/belongs semantics are, indeed, not always a perfect fit for
> the way things relate when we describe them in English. For example, I
> remember coming up with an example once where I ended up with a Club
> belonging to a Member (or something like that; I''m not remembering
> exactly), whereas normally we''d say "He belongs to that
club."
>
> My advice would be to use it as is for a while. If you want two-way
> has_many''s, then just use has_many. Remember that the main point
of
> associations, in any case, is that they generate methods for you.
It''s
> nice to have them as close as possible to the domain you''re
modeling,
> but it''s often not very close since "has" and
"belongs to" are not
> general terms for expressing every possible connection between two
> things.
>
> In the end, I think it''s better to keep the number of association
> methods down, partly because it helps when it comes to learning how
> the associations themselves behave -- which ones trigger automatic
> saves, and when, and things like that.
>
>
> David
I am very grateful for this response. I, too was having a bit of 
difficulty earlier when the "English just wasn''t making
sense". See, I
have an Event model and a DressCode model and I want to say that Event 
has_one DressCode, but I put the foreign key (dress_code_id) in the 
Event model (just as I would in my usual SQL/PHP ways. It turned out 
that I had to say DressCode has_many Events and Event belongs_to 
DressCode. Unorthodox but it works because now I can run 
Event.dress_code and I get the result i''m looking for.

Rails is so advanced that I sometimes forget that it is still just a 
programming language and, as you said, can''t always be semantically 
correct all the time when illustrating real world relationships.

I spent a while searching, ended up on this thread and I finally got my 
head around it. To the original poster - just take the advice and do 
what needs to be done in order to satisfy the rails convention. Reading 
your code might be weird, but that''s nothing that a few comments
can''t
fix ;)

-- 
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Just use a couple of aliases if you''re so bothered by the lack of 
semantic readability.

belongs_to_many = has_many
has_a = belongs_to

but beware that in your need to make the code more semantically 
readable, you''ve just confounded a seasoned railer. :)

-- 
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
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.