Re: overriding on Rails: tables, foreign keys

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Jerome Hughes
>
>  From what have seen at this point, looks like once you've done this
> in your model class, the overridden table can be handled just like
> one that follows the convention.
>
> Might not be able to use the scaffold with it, but those get replaced
> when an app is built out anyway, so actual controller, etc. just get
> generated sooner.

Actually, I'd be surprised if you couldn't use the scaffold, since it's such
an intrinsic part of the tool.  (And of course you need the ID field fix
just to work with MySQL, which capitalizes the ID field name.)

In general, Ruby seems quite capable of handling "non-conventional"
environments through configuration.  And while the configuration is in the
code itself rather than in external files, the terseness of Ruby code in
general might ameliorate that particular issue.  I mean, it's not like
there's a ton of code in any given ActiveRecord class, so sticking the
configuration right in the code rather than in some non-typed XML file can
probably be argued to be a positive.

Joe