[LRUG] Field definitions in AR models

[Rory Sinclair]

Enrique Riepenhausen did a really good talk on this subject at Scottish Ruby Conf in 2011.  He touched on this quite a bit, as well as the mindset we tend to get into 'translating' our customers language into CRUD operations we can do on AR objects, which is, he argues, a bit too low-level and not really modelling the domain at all.  It certainly stuck with me since, and i've tried to apply it to stuff I build (though i'm not dealing with AR directly every day these days).

Here's the link, but unf. the video doesn't seem to be working at the moment, and I couldn't find a working one... :(

http://confreaks.tv/videos/scotlandruby2011-don-t-build-another-tower-of-babel 

-- 
Rory Sinclair
Head of Technology
ASMALLWORLD


On Wednesday, 25 February 2015 at 16:51, Thomas Buckley-Houston wrote:

> Really interesting to hear the viewpoint that AR is just a persistence
> layer and not designed to define the domain model. It all makes a lot
> more sense now.
> 
> @jc I'm interested in your idea about using accessors for each
> attribute, I'd like to try that. But yes, it's still not the single
> source of truth and so there's the risk of going out of sync with the
> DB.
> 
> Anyway, lots to think about, much appreciated folks :)
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org (mailto:Chat at lists.lrug.org)
> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20150225/f4b070a3/attachment.html>