# Is HABTM Dying? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [June 5, 2006, 5:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459 "2006-06-05T05:27:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:27am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/1 "2006-06-05T05:27:53Z")
For a while, I’ve been getting that HMT is replacing HABTM. It appears that HMT can do all of what HABTM can do and more. The question is: Should I stop using HABTM? Let’s take a simple case: A case has many categories For a given category, there are certain valid statuses Category has\_and\_belongs\_to\_many :statuses Status has\_and\_belongs\_to\_many :categories Question: Is there value associated with creating the join model to implement HMT for something this simple? I’m asking because it seems HABTM is on the endangered features list. ## Thanks View this message in context: [http://www.nabble.com/Is-HABTM-Dying--t1733210.html#a4709495](http://www.nabble.com/Is-HABTM-Dying--t1733210.html#a4709495) Sent from the RubyOnRails Users forum at [Nabble.com](http://Nabble.com). ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/2 "2006-06-05T05:46:02Z")
On 6/4/06, s.ross [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Status > has\_and\_belongs\_to\_many :categories > > Question: > > Is there value associated with creating the join model to implement HMT for > something this simple? I’m asking because it seems HABTM is on the > endangered features list. > > Thanks I use both HABTM and Has-Many-Through (HMT) depending on what “feels” right. In the strictly many-to-many case, such as seems to be in your example, I see no problem with sticking with HABTM. HTM is typically important when there is a value in having a real abstraction for the “middle” object (from which you can hook other relations and enforce validations). In any case, HTM and HABTM are not mutually exclusive, and I like having both of them around; I see no reason for eliminating HABTM (not to mention this would break compatibility with older Rails apps in a pretty serious way). I don’t think HABTM is “endagered.” ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 7:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/3 "2006-06-05T07:14:35Z")
Check this out: [http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/articles/2006/04/20/many-to-many-dance-off](http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/articles/2006/04/20/many-to-many-dance-off) Does a fantastic job of explaining the differences and similarities. HABTM aint dying, IMO. Joe ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/4 "2006-06-05T14:24:40Z")
I don’t think HABTM is going away… but I believe that push\_with\_attributes is. ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/5 "2006-06-05T17:59:04Z")
HMT isn’t appropriate in all cases. There are many times when I want a relationship between two objects, but the association has usefulness on its own. I would be unhappy if they got rid of HABTM and handcuffed me to create a meaningless association models there there is none needed. ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/6 "2006-06-05T18:06:32Z")
As would I… and I’m also not happy that push\_with\_attributes has been deprecated; It’s not a good practice to use push\_with\_attributes, but it sure makes it easy to work with a legacy database where creating a new table just won’t work for you. ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/7 "2006-06-05T18:41:31Z")
Oops, that shoudl read “no usefulness”. Not enough coffee this morning. ---
**Author:** ![cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cwd](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/cwd)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 2:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-habtm-dying/62459/8 "2006-06-05T14:34:13Z")
…or maybe it is going away. Apparently HABTM is nearing the end of its life and folks are encouraged to use hmt… too bad because I think there’s still times when HABTM is useful (Bosko’s resonse above is a very good one.) Sorry for the confusion.