Rails core - Dec 2007 - Looking for +1 on patch to make default database more Windows-friendly

The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a great idea.
But it''s far less common for Windows users to even know about sqlite3
than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can present an unpleasant
experience for new users.

I''ve created a patch which modifies the app generator to use sqlite3
if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the default database
will revert back to MySQL.

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10569

+1 anybody?

Thanks!
Jeff
softiesonrails.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi Jeff,

Sorry, don''t like this.

1) Defaults should be constant imho, not variable.

2) I''d suggest mySQL is just as uncommon as sqlite3 on Windows
machines.
Installing mySQL takes more effort and knowledge than installing 
sqlite3. If you want a default on a Windows machine I''d think SQL
Server
2005 would be the choice, not mySQL.

3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I''d say, let''s be a
fascist all
the way: sqlite3. period.

4) Having one default for all systems means: less code (all 3 lines of 
those ;), less documentation, less confusion.

I''m for mislav''s suggestion that this is more a matter of
documentation.

And perhaps a user friendly bail message when things bomb (if that
isn''t
given already)



Regards,
Lawrence
> The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a great idea.
> But it''s far less common for Windows users to even know about
sqlite3
> than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can present an unpleasant
> experience for new users.
>
> I''ve created a patch which modifies the app generator to use
sqlite3
> if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the default database
> will revert back to MySQL.
>
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10569
>
> +1 anybody?
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff
> softiesonrails.com
> >
>
>   

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I disagree with that.  I don''t know anyone who uses SQL Server unless
they have to (especially with Rails).  Installing mySQL is as simple
as downloading the installer and running it.

I think the sqlite default makes sense; I would guess the majority of
Rails developers are probably on some sort of *nix or a derivative, so
this isn''t much of an issue.

--Jerem

On Dec 19, 2007 11:24 PM, Lawrence Pit <lawrence.pit@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>  Hi Jeff,
>
>  Sorry, don''t like this.
>
>  1) Defaults should be constant imho, not variable.
>
>  2) I''d suggest mySQL is just as uncommon as sqlite3 on Windows
machines.
> Installing mySQL takes more effort and knowledge than installing sqlite3.
If
> you want a default on a Windows machine I''d think SQL Server 2005
would be
> the choice, not mySQL.
>
>  3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I''d say, let''s be
a fascist all the
> way: sqlite3. period.
>
>  4) Having one default for all systems means: less code (all 3 lines of
> those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
>
>  I''m for mislav''s suggestion that this is more a matter
of documentation.
>
>  And perhaps a user friendly bail message when things bomb (if that
isn''t
> given already)
>
>
>
>  Regards,
>  Lawrence
>
>
>
>
>  The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a great idea.
> But it''s far less common for Windows users to even know about
sqlite3
> than MySQL. So right out of the gate this can present an unpleasant
> experience for new users.
>
> I''ve created a patch which modifies the app generator to use
sqlite3
> if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found. If not, the default database
> will revert back to MySQL.
>
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10569
>
> +1 anybody?
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff
> softiesonrails.com
>
>
>
>
>
>  >
>


-- 
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 20, 2007 7:02 AM, Jeremy McAnally <jeremymcanally@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the sqlite default makes sense; I would guess the majority of
> Rails developers are probably on some sort of *nix or a derivative, so
> this isn''t much of an issue.

I''m constantly surprised by the number of Rails developers still using
Windows.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 12/20/07, Mislav Marohnić <mislav.marohnic@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I'm constantly surprised by the number of Rails developers still using
> Windows.
>
me too.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, Lawrence Pit <lawrence....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Sorry, don''t like this.
>
> 1) Defaults should be constant imho, not variable.
I generally agree, but I think a reasonable degrade approach is
necessary here.
> 2) I''d suggest mySQL is just as uncommon as sqlite3 on Windows
machines.
> Installing mySQL takes more effort and knowledge than installing
> sqlite3. If you want a default on a Windows machine I''d think SQL
Server
> 2005 would be the choice, not mySQL.
I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was pulled from core in
2.0, I don''t think it would be good to make it the default in any
scenario.  Of all of the open-source databases that Rails supports out
of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least have heard of MySQL and
a little googling finds wide acceptance among big-name companies.  I
think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all.

The scenario I''m trying to solve is this:

1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step of trying out Rails.
2. She picks up any Rails book on the market, finds out she needs to
install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer, and does a gem install
rails
3. She types "rails hello_world" and creates one model
4. Big Problems
> 3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I''d say, let''s be a
fascist all
> the way: sqlite3. period.
>
> 4) Having one default for all systems means: less code (all 3 lines of
> those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
>
> I''m for mislav''s suggestion that this is more a matter of
documentation.
>
> And perhaps a user friendly bail message when things bomb (if that
isn''t
> given already)
Perhaps I should change the --help text to read, "Default: sqlite3 (or
MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ?  That would be fine with me.

> Regards,
> Lawrence> The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a great
idea.
> > But it''s far less common for Windows users to even know about
sqlite3
> > than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can present an unpleasant
> > experience for new users.
>
> > I''ve created a patch which modifies the app generator to use
sqlite3
> > if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the default database
> > will revert back to MySQL.
>
> >http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10569
>
> > +1 anybody?
>
> > Thanks!
> > Jeff
> > softiesonrails.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I second Jeff.

On Dec 20, 2007 3:57 PM, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, Lawrence Pit <lawrence....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Sorry, don''t like this.
> >
> > 1) Defaults should be constant imho, not variable.
>
> I generally agree, but I think a reasonable degrade approach is
> necessary here.
>
> > 2) I''d suggest mySQL is just as uncommon as sqlite3 on
Windows machines.
> > Installing mySQL takes more effort and knowledge than installing
> > sqlite3. If you want a default on a Windows machine I''d think
SQL Server
> > 2005 would be the choice, not mySQL.
>
> I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was pulled from core in
> 2.0, I don''t think it would be good to make it the default in any
> scenario.  Of all of the open-source databases that Rails supports out
> of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least have heard of MySQL and
> a little googling finds wide acceptance among big-name companies.  I
> think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all.
>
> The scenario I''m trying to solve is this:
>
> 1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step of trying out Rails.
> 2. She picks up any Rails book on the market, finds out she needs to
> install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer, and does a gem install
> rails
> 3. She types "rails hello_world" and creates one model
> 4. Big Problems
>
> > 3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I''d say, let''s
be a fascist all
> > the way: sqlite3. period.
> >
> > 4) Having one default for all systems means: less code (all 3 lines of
> > those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
> >
> > I''m for mislav''s suggestion that this is more a
matter of documentation.
> >
> > And perhaps a user friendly bail message when things bomb (if that
isn''t
> > given already)
>
> Perhaps I should change the --help text to read, "Default: sqlite3 (or
> MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ?  That would be fine with me.
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Lawrence> The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a
great
> idea.
> > > But it''s far less common for Windows users to even know
about sqlite3
> > > than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can present an
unpleasant
> > > experience for new users.
> >
> > > I''ve created a patch which modifies the app generator to
use sqlite3
> > > if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the default
database
> > > will revert back to MySQL.
> >
> > >http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10569
> >
> > > +1 anybody?
> >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Jeff
> > > softiesonrails.com
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 12/20/07, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was pulled from core in
> 2.0, I don''t think it would be good to make it the default in any
> scenario

Agree 100%.


Of all of the open-source databases that Rails supports
out
> of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least have heard of MySQL and
> a little googling finds wide acceptance among big-name companies.  I
> think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all.

One way of fixing the popularity problem is to use just sqlite in the
default install.  A lot of Windows developers could well discover that
sqlite is easier to use (no need to monkey with admin interfaces and
permissions; rake db:create just works) and every bit as good for their
needs as mysql.  Personally, I use sqlite for development and mysql for
production.  It''s a great setup.  I''m surprised I
didn''t try sqlite until
Rails 2.0 suggested it.

The scenario I''m trying to solve is this:
>
> 1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step of trying out Rails.
> 2. She picks up any Rails book on the market, finds out she needs to
> install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer, and does a gem install
> rails
> 3. She types "rails hello_world" and creates one model
> 4. Big Problems

Every book I''ve seen starts with setting up database.yaml.  You omit
that
step and then worry that the user''s app won''t work.  Well, if
you omit that
step with Rails 1.2, your app will have Big Problems too!  (I think
you''re
overstating your case a wee bit).

There will also be Big Problems when the user tries to use pagination or
list examples...  or the functional test examples shown in the book... etc.
I don''t think anybody expects a book on Rails 1.0 is going to be fully
compatible with Rails 2.0.

Perhaps I should change the --help text to read, "Default: sqlite3
(or
> MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ?  That would be fine with me.

That''s still arbitrarily modifying the defaults isn''t it? 
Seems to me like
this will cause more trouble than it solves.

I really don''t think Windows users are as clueless as you make them out
to
be.  The majority of them anyway.  ;)

    - Scott

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

For what it''s worth, I fully agree with Scott. I''d prefer to
stick to
one default database. Sqlite is really easy to install on windows
(easier than MySQL) and generating a MySQL based rails app, really
isn''t that hard.

My suggestion: let''s stick to sqlite for a little while, if
that''s
really a problem we can always re evaluate the situation later on.

-Matt

On Dec 20, 12:24 pm, "Scott Bronson" <bron...@rinspin.com>
wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Jeff <cohen.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was pulled from core in
> > 2.0, I don''t think it would be good to make it the default in
any
> > scenario
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> Of all of the open-source databases that Rails supports out
>
> > of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least have heard of MySQL and
> > a little googling finds wide acceptance among big-name companies.  I
> > think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all.
>
> One way of fixing the popularity problem is to use just sqlite in the
> default install.  A lot of Windows developers could well discover that
> sqlite is easier to use (no need to monkey with admin interfaces and
> permissions; rake db:create just works) and every bit as good for their
> needs as mysql.  Personally, I use sqlite for development and mysql for
> production.  It''s a great setup.  I''m surprised I
didn''t try sqlite until
> Rails 2.0 suggested it.
>
> The scenario I''m trying to solve is this:
>
>
>
> > 1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step of trying out Rails.
> > 2. She picks up any Rails book on the market, finds out she needs to
> > install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer, and does a gem install
> > rails
> > 3. She types "rails hello_world" and creates one model
> > 4. Big Problems
>
> Every book I''ve seen starts with setting up database.yaml.  You
omit that
> step and then worry that the user''s app won''t work. 
Well, if you omit that
> step with Rails 1.2, your app will have Big Problems too!  (I think
you''re
> overstating your case a wee bit).
>
> There will also be Big Problems when the user tries to use pagination or
> list examples...  or the functional test examples shown in the book... etc.
> I don''t think anybody expects a book on Rails 1.0 is going to be
fully
> compatible with Rails 2.0.
>
> Perhaps I should change the --help text to read, "Default: sqlite3 (or
>
> > MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ?  That would be fine with
me.
>
> That''s still arbitrarily modifying the defaults isn''t it?
Seems to me like
> this will cause more trouble than it solves.
>
> I really don''t think Windows users are as clueless as you make
them out to
> be.  The majority of them anyway.  ;)
>
>     - Scott
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:52:22 -0500, Steven A Bristol wrote:
>> I''m constantly surprised by the number of Rails developers
still using
>> Windows.
>>
> 
> me too.
Yeah, shocking that there are still some people using the OS that has 90%
of the desktop market share... :)

FWIW, I have three Mac laptops.  But for ergonomics, I need to work at a
desktop, and there are still a decent number of Windows apps I prefer to
their Mac equivalents.  Only in the past year have Parallels and VM Fusion
(and Adobe CS3 native!) made it really feasible for us hard-core Windows
users to consider switching without starting from scratch.  Personally,
I''ve promised myself an 8-core Mac Pro Penryn this January, assuming
the
rumors are true.

(Hopefully this won''t start a platform war; I just wanted to remind
people
that developers with Windows desktops do exist, despite what you may see at
RailsConf.)

That said, building Ruby-plus-gems from scratch is so difficult and
error-prone on Windows right now that *anyone* trying Rails is going to be
using the One-Click Installer or Instant Rails or something like that.  

So if they were to start packaging SQLite (and maybe they already do), that
could solve the problem without having differing Rails defaults.  Honestly,
I don''t think MySQL has that much better mindshare on Windows.  Either
you''re involved in open source, in which case you know about MySQL and
Postgres and SQLite, or you''re not, in which case you know about MS
Access
and Jet and SQL Server and whatever Microsoft''s latest lite-desktop-SQL
engine is called.

Better to have one default everywhere.

-- 
Jay Levitt                |
Boston, MA                | My character doesn''t like it when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm         | - Kristoffer 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 20, 2:15 pm, Jay Levitt <jay+n...@jay.fm>
wrote:
> That said, building Ruby-plus-gems from scratch is so difficult and
> error-prone on Windows right now that *anyone* trying Rails is going to be
> using the One-Click Installer or Instant Rails or something like that.
> So if they were to start packaging SQLite (and maybe they already do), that
>could solve the problem without having differing Rails defaults.
That''s a good point.  If the OCI included SQLite this patch would
never have occurred to me.  Looking back I wish that perhaps DHH could
have coordinated with Curt Hibbs, but perhaps that was impossible to
foresee at the time.

I do sympathize with other points of view here.  I also wince a bit at
having this dynamic default. I just couldn''t think of anything better
and this might really bite hard for Windows users using 2.0 in the
near future.  If the core decides to wait and see before applying the
patch, that would be fine with me, too.

Jeff
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, Lawrence Pit <lawrence....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I''d say, let''s be a
fascist all
> the way: sqlite3. period.
>
> 4) Having one default for all systems means: less code (all 3 lines of
> those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
>
> I''m for mislav''s suggestion that this is more a matter of
documentation.
I agree with Lawrence.

And Rails is Opinionated Software.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

For me SQLite is a better choice because the default database Rails  
uses is constant across all platforms. And maybe it''s just me, but I  
like the idea of having a *vendor agnostic* DB used by default (we are  
not advertising MySQL AB that puts enterprise subscription ads even in  
documentation now and acts_as_enterprisey every way they can; but  
still for serious geospatial apps you have to go with Postgres because  
MySQL puts their efforts in marketing, not in database development).

On 19 дек. 2007, at 22:33, Jeff wrote:
>
> The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a great idea.
> But it''s far less common for Windows users to even know about
sqlite3
> than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can present an unpleasant
> experience for new users.
>
> I''ve created a patch which modifies the app generator to use
sqlite3
> if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the default database
> will revert back to MySQL.
>
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10569
>
> +1 anybody?
MK
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi --

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Jeremy McAnally wrote:
>
> I disagree with that.  I don''t know anyone who uses SQL Server
unless
> they have to (especially with Rails).  Installing mySQL is as simple
> as downloading the installer and running it.
>
> I think the sqlite default makes sense; I would guess the majority of
> Rails developers are probably on some sort of *nix or a derivative, so
> this isn''t much of an issue.
I would add that since this is something one does once per
application, it''s not a really big deal either way. If you''re
creating
lots and lots of applications for whatever reason, you''re going to
want to write a script to handle it anyway.


David

-- 
Training for 2008!
Ruby on Rails training by David A. Black/Ruby Power and Light, LLC:
    * Intro to Rails, New York, NY, February 4-7 2008
    * Advancing With Rails, New York, NY, February 11-14 2008
Hosted by Exceed Education. See http://www.rubypal.com for details!

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 22, 2007 4:43 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com>
wrote:
> I would add that since this is something one does once per
> application, it''s not a really big deal either way. If
you''re creating
> lots and lots of applications for whatever reason, you''re going to
> want to write a script to handle it anyway.
Right.  That''s why I gave this a +1 - only because it seemed like it
would make it easier for people to learn rails out of the box on
Windows.

It''s not at all about what''s more consistent, or what is
cleaner code,
or what is a better database.  In my opinion, the new-user ease of use
trumps all those reasons, because experienced users can use ERB to
make the database.yml do whatever they want wherever they want.  It''s
just a config file.

-- Chad

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

It''s really straightforward to install sqlite3 on Windows, though.
Just point new Rails users to this article:
http://mislav.caboo.se/rails/install-sqlite3/#windows


On Dec 22, 12:03 am, Josh Peek <joshp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, Lawrence Pit <lawrence....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I''d say, let''s
be a fascist all
> > the way: sqlite3. period.
>
> > 4) Having one default for all systems means: less code (all 3 lines of
> > those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
>
> > I''m for mislav''s suggestion that this is more a
matter of documentation.
>
> I agree with Lawrence.
>
> And Rails is Opinionated Software.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> It''s really straightforward to install sqlite3 on Windows, though.
> Just point new Rails users to this article:
> http://mislav.caboo.se/rails/install-sqlite3/#windows
It might be even more straightforward than that as it seems like next
version of instantrails will come with sqlite3:

http://rbazinet.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/whats-coming-in-instant-rails-20-and-beyond-the-road-map/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---