similar to: Polymorphism, acts_as_relation gem and nested attributes

I would like to have a customer that has references to two addresses, a billing address and a shipping address. In a non-rails environment I would have two keys in the customers table, billing_address_id and shipping_address_id to reference the addresses. It appears that ActiveRecord expects the parent id to reside in the child table, regardless of whether the relationship is one-to-one or

hi, i've been running Exim & Dovecot together on the same box. Exim's been sharing Dovecot/SASL auth info over a local unix socket. works great. i'm now splitting Exim & Dovecot onto two different boxes. iiuc, Dovecot ONLY provides a UNIX (local) socket; *not* a TCP socket for over-the-network access. SUre, I could mount the Dovecot socket's volume over NFS ... but

Hello, I posted a similar email, earlier in the week, but I still must not be getting it. I have a customer that aggregates two addresses; a shipping address and a billing address. Addresses can also be referenced by other objects in a similar way, so I would really like to avoid putting the keys referencing the customer or other objects in the addresses table. Addresses are exclusively

Hello, I''m trying to insert into my migrate but when I try on rails console this error shows: 1.9.3-p0 :001 > group = Group.new => #<Group id: nil, name: nil, description: nil, created_at: nil, updated_at: nil> 1.9.3-p0 :002 > group.name = "Group Name" => "Group Name" 1.9.3-p0 :003 > group.description = "Description" =>

Hi all, I need to model simple typed polymorphic relations: ''John'' [''works_for''] ''Bill'' ''John'' [''speaks_for''] ''Microsoft'' ''Microsoft'' [''hold_shares_of''] ''Apple'' I''m having a hard time combining : - S.T.I.

Hi, currently I do some work with polymorphic associations in egde rails class Order < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :payment, :polymorphic => true end class CreditCardPayment < Payment end class PayPalPayment < Payment end class Payment < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :order, :as => :payment # common stuff in here end I want to use [Payment] for common functionality

I have a tree (acts_as_tree) with nodes where each node is instances of different subclasses of Node. Each Node subclass knows how to point to another table/instance in order to accomplish extension by composition. This works good most of the time where I either loops over just the nodes without accessing the "external" data (the instance pointed to by Node subclass) or just

Ticket 4052 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/4052) just came through trac, which introduces the need for a better way to access fixtures. I believe the basic problem is the same as 3935 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3935) in that the accessor method which is constructed by the fixture call can''t infer the class name from the table name. The band-aid in 3935 was to allow you to

I love the query interface (ActiveMethod::QueryMethods), but one thing has bugged me: why doesn''t it generate calls for polymorphic associations? For example: class MyModel < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :parent, :polymorphic => true end I would expect: MyModel.where(:parent => a) to be equivalent to: MyModel.where("my_models.parent_id = ? AND

Hi all, I have a calendar. The calendar has different kinds of events. Each event type has additional information so i think i need a new model for each new event type. eg: a game event has additional oponent and oponents colors info. Is this best solved via polymorphism where I create an eventable interface? Thanks Stijn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this

Hi, I have had several emails from people thanking me for the following documention patch. http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6040 Any chance this could be commited so more people can find it? Peter

I have a problem to break down and implement. At first look it seems, as if it should be done in polymorphic way. I imagine it as having this "abstract" class model Thing and then many many many different concrete_thing_types. My doubt is though - I am not really able to tell now what and how many of those different concrete_thing_types there will be. There may be "hundreds"

>> How difficult would it be to add such a capability to llvm? I was thinking >> of marking type variables like T as opaque types for the initial codegen, >> and then writing a custom pass that instantiates them to real types. >> However, I don't know if that would confuse or break other parts of the >> compiler infrastructure; parametric polymorphism is not

On 2009-02-18, at 14:53, DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > On 2009-02-18, at 08:06, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Still, there are a large number of potential foibles here. For >> instance, passing an argument can require platform-specific >> contortions to conform to the platform ABI... > > Are those contortions done by the native code generator back-end, or > are

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 21:27:21 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > Try implementing a generic complex number class in Java, and watch the > two-order-of-magnitude drop in performance on scientific code. Amen. I haven't proven it with a working HLVM yet but I believe LLVM will make it possible (even easy?) to generate extremely performant code from heavily abstracted high-level source.

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 23:36:27 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. > > I'm surprised you're happy with a

> The same can be said of closures, garbage collection and a dozen other > features that also cannot feasibly be added to LLVM. > > The only logical solution is to build a HLVM on top of LLVM and share that > between these high-level language implementations. This is an excellent point. You have convinced me. :-) BTW, what garbage collector are you using for your HLVM? You

On Thursday 19 February 2009 03:31:04 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > The same can be said of closures, garbage collection and a dozen other > > features that also cannot feasibly be added to LLVM. > > > > The only logical solution is to build a HLVM on top of LLVM and share > > that between these high-level language implementations. > > This is an excellent point.

Hi Jon, Jon Harrop wrote: > Other people are creating far more bleeding edge VMs (e.g. VMKit) using LLVM's > GC API so they would be much better positioned to discuss the technical > aspects than I am. I would like to hear any status updates they have! > > VMKit uses conservative GCs (Boehm or Mmap2, a GC developed in our lab), so we don't use the GC API. But we are

On Thursday 19 February 2009 13:39:24 Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > Other people are creating far more bleeding edge VMs (e.g. VMKit) using > > LLVM's GC API so they would be much better positioned to discuss the > > technical aspects than I am. I would like to hear any status updates they > > have! > > VMKit uses conservative GCs (Boehm or