I believe you should be able to achieve the same just by overriding the #user method in your class. I’ve commented on your last gist example with an example code to make things more clear.
Agreed. We don't need any framework support for the null object pattern. Just use Ruby.
This kind of response is precisely why I came here first and didn’t just invest the time and opened a pull request.
IMHO this should be supported in the frame work, and I will be more then happy to work on it if you guys think it should go in.
I know Ruby can be used to override the relation.
I actually had a plan that the loading of the “Nil class” will be automatically based on the relation name, but you can override it with the :nil_class definition.
Anyway, let me know if you think it’s viable.
I understand the need behind your proposition but you want to insert some behaviour for the view in the model. This breaks the MVC separation. I do a lot of the following: if some_model.user ... end to check the presence of the association. Your proposition will break this idiom which is IMHO heavily used in code.
Regards,
Pascal
Le 08.09.12 20:57, Kensodev a �crit :
This is a complete Opt-In proposition, if you will not have the nil class present, it will not try to load it.
The code in your sample is EXACTLY the kind of code that I want to avoid with this feature, you should “Tell” object and not “ask” objects.
It will not break any existing code as long as you don’t opt into the nil class.
Of course it's an Opt-in, but once you decide that this association should use the NilUserClass, all of the application will be affected.
The code i showed is not done in the View but in other models, in controllers or anywhere else. For example I have a serializer that takes the Post record, it will ask for the association, will get an object and try to serialize it which is NOT what I want because the association should have lead to nil.
Once again, the problem here is that (even with opt-in) it affects the whole application (plugins, engines, etc...) and you still want to fix a view problem.
Regards,
Le 09.09.12 12:07, Kensodev a �crit :
I think this problem can be fixed in so many ways…
Overwrite the association method, using try on view or create a new method like that: https://gist.github.com/3655751#gistcomment-567880
You can even use a decorator 
One important point is if you need that everywhere in your system, you have an architecture problem in your application.
This is a sign, not a rule 
