Plural table names?

should we follow the convention? or use singular?

Definitely ignore as many conventions as you can, and thereby make
development as hard as possible on yourself.

Really makes sense. A table has a collection of objects, plural.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jeff [email protected] wrote:

Definitely ignore as many conventions as you can, and thereby make
development as hard as possible on yourself.

Ah yes, Consternation over Convention!


Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

I ask because I’ve seen debate on it and am not sure if the community
has reached a consensus. Objects named person corresponding to a
table named people seems brokenS, but I’m happy to do whatever is most
standard. Perhaps this issue is a dead horse?

hkhkhk wrote:

I ask because I’ve seen debate on it and am not sure if the community
has reached a consensus.

The Rails convention is to use plural table names.

Objects named person corresponding to a
table named people seems brokenS,

Why? One object is one person. The table contains data for many
objects – that is to say, many people.

but I’m happy to do whatever is most
standard. Perhaps this issue is a dead horse?

I’d say so.

Best,
–Â
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
[email protected]

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs