As bad as I hate to, I am going to revert our project to ASP.Net (C#). I think Rails has great potential. Unfortunately, a large amount of that potential is still difficult to put into practice. In its current state, I can''t hand off install instructions to the network operations center with a straight face (or, least not in good faith). So, I will check back on Rails maturation in a few months. Perhaps by the time our next big web project rolls around Rails will be a viable choice. I am actually quite depressed about this. I did make myself feel somewhat by buying a new guitar yesterday... (falls under the category of "if I am going to be an ASP.Net developer, I might as well enjoy the pay"). xev
Was it the rails application installation, or all the associated fcgi/apache/lighthttpd etc. stuff? On 5/25/05, Xevious <xevious-FgZ1Ih9JkPHx9BLsLxWUfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > As bad as I hate to, I am going to revert our project > to ASP.Net (C#). > > I think Rails has great potential. Unfortunately, a large > amount of that potential is still difficult to put into > practice. In its current state, I can''t hand off install > instructions to the network operations center with a straight > face (or, least not in good faith). > > So, I will check back on Rails maturation in a few months. > Perhaps by the time our next big web project rolls around > Rails will be a viable choice. > > I am actually quite depressed about this. I did make myself > feel somewhat by buying a new guitar yesterday... (falls under > the category of "if I am going to be an ASP.Net developer, I > might as well enjoy the pay"). > > xev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Michael Campbell wrote:> Was it the rails application installation, or all the associated > fcgi/apache/lighthttpd etc. stuff?IIS / fcgi config. Adding things like salted user login generator. Then downloading localization, etc. This is stuff I am used to from the linux side of my life. I suppose I could create a CD with some install scripts and registry entries and give to the NOC. The problem with that - it would probably get killed during the change-review commitee process or during the security audit review. (Plus we would now have some magical install CD that is single sourced by myself.) xev
Xevious wrote:> ... > I am actually quite depressed about this. I did make myself > feel somewhat by buying a new guitar yesterday... (falls under > the category of "if I am going to be an ASP.Net developer, I > might as well enjoy the pay").It was a Strat, right? James
James Britt wrote:> It was a Strat, right?Nah, it was a Yamaha Pacifica 312. A very nice strat copy. It is going to become my "living room" guitar. Rails content: Ummm, Ruby and the Pacifica were both made in Japan... xev PS: I do have a very nice, made in USA, Fender Roscoe Beck V bass. I just don''t feel like noodling on it when faced with a programming problem.
I have recently had the same experience. I am still going to subscribe to the list and keep playing around, but I did struggle with Ruby a bit. I think it was because I am so used to Java. And I don''t mean the language or the syntax, I mean the portability of it. Once Java is installed on the machine, I drag some jar files around and call it a day. But with Ruby, I have to install Ruby, Gem, Rails, all the parts that come with Rails (which usually download automatically) and any extras that I might need. I was trying to connect to an Oracle database in the database.yml, and it was basically impossible. I had to have certain packages installed. And to have one package, I needed another. And to have the second one, I needed to have an ORACLE_HOME variable setup. But, to have an ORACLE_HOME variable, I would have had to install Oracle. I didn''t want to do any of that. I just wanted to talk to the database I already had on another machine. Very frustrating. But, besides that, I was getting the hang of it. I was able to get Apache2, fcgi and all that other stuff installed with not too much hassle. Now, that was just on my dev machine. The problem is that I would have had to go through the same procedure with my NOC team. There would have to be lots of practice, we would have to/want to upgrade all of our Apache installs from 1.3 to 2.0, install all the modules for Ruby and Rails... Once all that is done, it is just ridiculous how easy it is to setup an application with Rails. We just need to have all those parts already done. Charlie Xevious said the following on 5/25/2005 4:25 PM:> Michael Campbell wrote: > >> Was it the rails application installation, or all the associated >> fcgi/apache/lighthttpd etc. stuff? > > > IIS / fcgi config. > > Adding things like salted user login generator. Then downloading > localization, etc. > > This is stuff I am used to from the linux side of my life. I suppose > I could create a CD with some install scripts and registry entries and > give to the NOC. > > The problem with that - it would probably get killed during the > change-review commitee process or during the security audit review. > (Plus we would now have some magical install CD that is single > sourced by myself.) > > xev > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
> I think it was because I am so used to Java. And I don''t mean the > language or the syntax, I mean the portability of it. Once Java is > installed on the machine, I drag some jar files around and call it > a day.It sounds like you have your java environments all set up already, but not your rails environments. If I need to move rails apps around, I just checkout from source control, tweak datbase.config, import data or run my schema script, and start the web server. At the end of the day, Rails is still a Ruby app, that runs on top of a web server with FCGI bindings, and that connects to a database. The main difference between this and ASP.Net that I can see, is that MS provides a nice installation script that sets all that stuff up for you. -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
On Wednesday 25 May 2005 05:50 pm, Rick Olson wrote:> > I think it was because I am so used to Java. And I don''t mean the > > language or the syntax, I mean the portability of it. Once Java is > > installed on the machine, I drag some jar files around and call it > > a day. > > It sounds like you have your java environments all set up already, but > not your rails environments. If I need to move rails apps around, I > just checkout from source control, tweak datbase.config, import data > or run my schema script, and start the web server.The production people/server might not even have access to source control. There is something to be said for essentially have an app in a single file. It probably wouldn''t be too hard to have a tool that create in single executable ".rapp" file that contained all the necessary source for the app, and would "explode" the source into useable directories. Might be a *little* bit hard to include all the libaries, but not impossible. David
It''s not quite that simple - Java has a variety of different deployment bundles for different applciation types (WARs, EARs, JARs, SARs etc) which are fairly simple to build, and if done correctly are very transportable. There is also a wealth of experience out there on how to create and use these deployments. You may well be able to to it with Rails in a similar way, but it will take time for this to become as smooth a process, and for the knoweldge to become widely spread enough for this to be as much of a "no-brainer" task as creating an executable JAR file is. sam On 5/25/05, Rick Olson <technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> It sounds like you have your java environments all set up already, but > not your rails environments. If I need to move rails apps around, I > just checkout from source control, tweak datbase.config, import data > or run my schema script, and start the web server. > > At the end of the day, Rails is still a Ruby app, that runs on top of > a web server with FCGI bindings, and that connects to a database. The > main difference between this and ASP.Net that I can see, is that MS > provides a nice installation script that sets all that stuff up for > you.-- sam http://www.magpiebrain.com/
Xevious wrote:> James Britt wrote: > >> It was a Strat, right? > > > Nah, it was a Yamaha Pacifica 312. A very nice strat > copy. It is going to become my "living room" guitar. > > Rails content: Ummm, Ruby and the Pacifica were both > made in Japan... > > xevI also fiddle with a japanese made guitar, a Ibanez JS1000BTB, signed by Joe Satriani and Steve Vai :) (caught them on their G3 tour last year). Beautiful instrument.
Xevious wrote:> James Britt wrote: > >> It was a Strat, right? > > > Nah, it was a Yamaha Pacifica 312. A very nice strat > copy. It is going to become my "living room" guitar. > > Rails content: Ummm, Ruby and the Pacifica were both > made in Japan... > > xev > > PS: I do have a very nice, made in USA, Fender Roscoe Beck V > bass. I just don''t feel like noodling on it when faced with > a programming problem.Ah, really? I find noodling my Stratocaster helps me think. To keep this Ruby-related, how''s this for a promo tag line: Ruby: The Stratocaster of Programming Languages James (waiting for the Gibson fans to chime in)