# Rails too Active?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-too-active/62174>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [January 17, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-too-active/62174 "2006-01-17T23:38:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lstrecv](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/e68b1a/32.png) [@lstrecv](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/lstrecv)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-too-active/62174/1 "2006-01-17T23:38:51Z")

</div>

I feel the need to protest about a disturbing trend in the vibrant RoR  
community - name dilution.

ActiveRecord is called that precisely because it is that. The name come  
from Martin F., and it expresses a class which is a database record,  
only _active_ - that is with methods & behaviors (unlike a classical  
database record, which is completely passive.) If you look in the  
ActiveRecord controller internals, you’ll see exactly that.

ActionController is also called that because it is that. Fowler  
describes different models for Controllers: One controller for the  
entire app (Front Controller), one controller for each page  
(PageController), or a twist on that, with a controller for each action

- close to a page, but using a OO app model, instead of a page/template  
model (think PHP). Rails went with the last.

ActionMailer and ActionWebService follow the paradigm of  
ActionController, and are hence named so accordingly.

But why ActiveRBAC? ActiveMerchant? ActiveLogger? If we simply name  
everything that has anythign to do with RoR “active”, we will rob the  
word of all of its meaning.

Besides, is there even a need? Why not RailsLogger, RailsMerchant,  
RBACforRails?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lstrecv](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/e68b1a/32.png) [@lstrecv](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/lstrecv)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-too-active/62174/2 "2006-01-18T01:45:40Z")

</div>

List R. wrote:

> describes different models for Controllers: One controller for the  
> word of all of its meaning.
> 
> Besides, is there even a need? Why not RailsLogger, RailsMerchant,  
> RBACforRails?

Yeah, I agree. I would like to add some points too.  
I know that Rails is a great framework and that has made us think in  
those years with others frameworks as wasted time. I think this is a  
reason for the naming of the new technologies for Rails with the word  
Rails.  
But that remind me a lot to the trend in the java world, where they  
name everything with “Java” or a “J”. This provocated the profusion and  
nonsense of acronyms as JAXP, JNDI, JavaBeans, JavaServer Pages, etc.  
Please, in the true sense and spirit of RoR, lets to make the things  
better than that and use proper and original names for the things we  
have in RoR.  
No more a silly pseudo-convention for names.  
Lets do it RoR-ish way!

Miguel