# Classifying rom gems in Ruby Toolbox

**URL:** <https://discourse.rom-rb.org/t/classifying-rom-gems-in-ruby-toolbox/492>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [January 2, 2022, 3:43pm UTC](https://discourse.rom-rb.org/t/classifying-rom-gems-in-ruby-toolbox/492 "2022-01-02T15:43:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pmackay](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.rom-rb.org/pmackay/32/219_2.png) [@pmackay](https://discourse.rom-rb.org/u/pmackay)\
**Post date:** [January 2, 2022, 3:43pm UTC](https://discourse.rom-rb.org/t/classifying-rom-gems-in-ruby-toolbox/492/1 "2022-01-02T15:43:37Z")

</div>

I use [Ruby Toolbox](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/) quite a lot when reviewing gems. The addition and classification of ROM gems could be improved on there. Just curious on people’s thoughts about which of these seems more appropriate:

1. Add rom gems to categories closely aligned with the technology backend, e.g. rom-csv in CSV parsers, rom-mongo in MongoDB Clients, etc.
2. Add all rom gems to [Object-relational mapping](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/categories/orm), where rom is now.
3. Propose a new category to contain all the rom gems.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![solnic](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/discourse.rom-rb.org/solnic/32/279_2.png) [@solnic](https://discourse.rom-rb.org/u/solnic)\
**Post date:** [January 4, 2022, 9:04am UTC](https://discourse.rom-rb.org/t/classifying-rom-gems-in-ruby-toolbox/492/2 "2022-01-04T09:04:04Z")

</div>

> [@pmackay](#):
>
> Add rom gems to categories closely aligned with the technology backend, e.g. rom-csv in CSV parsers, rom-mongo in MongoDB Clients, etc.

This would make sense 🙂