Hello Chris 🙂

Yeah, I do know ActiveAttr – it’s a great gem btw, congrats – and that it’s created to be modular. That’s ActiveModel’s goal as well, to provide pieces that you can use to build up your classes/models. I just think that ActiveModel gives you the API to be flexible enough to create the functionality you need, and usually not some functionality out of the box. ActiveAttr takes it a step further and implement its modules on top of ActiveModel, giving you a final implementation for common cases, which is great =).
Thanks for your feedback.

—
At.
Carlos Antonio

 Carlos, you may want to take a closer look at ActiveAttr. While it does offer the all-in-one Model module, it’s made up of slices of functionality that I think captures the spirit of the ActiveModel library.

Hey Joris, sorry but what do you mean about “defining a form”? Would you mind trying to exemplify your idea?

The change we are showing in this post helps you create a model with some plug and play functionality, the api you need to use with Rails helpers – ie form_for and url helpers.. but that doesn’t mean it’s only tied to a form.

Thanks.

imo rails confuses “Form” with “Model”…  Ofcourse it should be easy to create a form from a model, but this is where the annoyance started

I believe ActiveModel::Model is a great start, it makes it a lot easier to get a barebone model with the most common required interface up and running quickly. Other than that, Rails already provides everything else required to create AR-like classes, you just need to cherry-pick what you need, when you need. ActiveAttr is great in the sense of collecting all available modules in ActiveModel as a convenience, but I’m not sure it’d be a great fit for Rails to have an all-in-one module like it.

Thanks for your feedback.