Forum: Ruby on Rails Rails too Active?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Ccfe7d097475a32dc3ff78d6fc42c852?d=identicon&s=25 List Recv (lstrecv)
on 2006-01-17 23:38
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 Fowler, 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?
Fcd3b65b9d8d37d7cd91f3159b851b11?d=identicon&s=25 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martínez (Guest)
on 2006-01-18 01:45
(Received via mailing list)
List Recv 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
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.