Re: The truth about good design

kazim59 — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:30:17 -0000

@Waseem Ahmad That's the irony in design world. And that's how most of us are. As an example: many users would come to your website, won't find it *interesting*, and leave. It did not make an impression on them. But they can't tell what could you've done differently to make that impression.

Re: Ruby on Rails Code Quality Checklist - Matthew Paul Moore

kazim59 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:41:03 -0000

Alright.

I'm not in favour of STI when the only thing common is "data structure". The models should also share the domain. Like the example you just gave above B.Vandgrift, I do not see the four models sharing anything but 'data structure'. They don't share domain.

As an another example, when doing Activities in my application, I used STI for different kinds of activities. like AddFriendActivity, and so on. Many reasons for this.
1) I can add new activities, without writing new tables/models.
2) My activities don't differ in database fields, but differ in the code for generating them and distributing their feed. Even that has a lot of common code, which I've put in the parent Activity model.
3) View rendering of all activities are same, so I don't have different controllers. My controllers & views deal with the Activity class, and don't have to care about which kind of activity! All activity objects have #render method, overridden whenever needed, to get displayed properly.
4) And I could've used polymorphic associations for doing all this stuff, as the author of the post would suggest, but I preferred performance and simple OOP over other things.

Inheritance is a beautiful OOP principle. And in ORM, one of its names is STI.

Re: Getting Paperclip Working In Windows

kazim59 — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:48:27 -0000

Saved my day. Thanks.

Disqus - Latest Comments for kazim59

Re: The truth about good design

Re: Ruby on Rails Code Quality Checklist - Matthew Paul Moore

Re: Getting Paperclip Working In Windows