Re: Ruby on Rails on i site back up

[Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen <ravn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Aaron Bartell skrev:
> > The next Rails challenge is to get a rails app running using a
> >     
> legacy database table.  That is, a table that hasn't implemented
> some simplifying conventions designed for Rails (like a primary key called
> ID and primary keys that are identity columns).
>
> Things like this in the latest frameworks makes me wonder how much long term
> real world experience some of these framework writers have.  Hibernate (
> www.hibernate.org) suffers from the same issues of idealogical DB structures
> (at least it did in V2.x, not so sure about V3.x).  Note I am not saying the
> majority of RPG shop table structures are good, but they do/did account for
> a lot of major company's data back-ends.
>   
I think the crucial point is where the ownership to the the table is 
placed.  If the framework is designed to do it all starting from scratch 
- like Rails if I understand it correctly - then it makes perfect sense 
that Rails owns it.

Hibernate expects to start with the Java bean, not the database table.  
If you want to use it the other way around you must use a tool to create 
a bean that corresponds to the database table so Hibernate is happy.  I 
found one in MyEclipse which worked well for me to model those classes I 
needed.