Hey Ryan,
I asked this question awhile back, but any support planned for table
returning functions, or stored procedures?
I''m envisioning basically a mutable model class where you have 1 or
more
instance variables defined (with default values) that are used in the
SQL queries as input parameters. When you instantiate the class you can
specifically define these parameters or use the defaults, when you
access the class directly it just uses the defaults.
Since the columns returned should be the same (unless its an olap type
query which wouldn''t be supported) I think this would generally be
compatible with active record.
This would really foster corporate adoption. Personally, a lot of our
logic is in the stored procedures. Yes, one can argue that this is not
a proper tiered design, but there simply is some logic BETTER done on
the SQL server. Plus, you get the benefits of being able to optimize
complex queries and use temp tables.
Best,
B
---------------------------
Brian Corrigan
Operations Manager
MGAM Systems, Inc.
1 Broadway Place
Schenectady, NY 12305
brian.corrigan@mm-games.com
tel: 518-881-1121
fax: 518-881-1128
mobile: 518-727-6652
---------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: rails-bounces@lists.rubyonrails.org
[mailto:rails-bounces@lists.rubyonrails.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Tomayko
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:17 AM
To: Jakob Skjerning
Cc: rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
Subject: [Rails] Re: Rails SQL Server adapter
[copying the rails list for more feedback]
On 3/17/06, Jakob Skjerning <jakob@mentalized.net>
wrote:> I believe you''re currently the man putting a lot of effort into
the
> Rails SQL Server adapter - is this correct?
Somewhat. I am maintaining the SQLServer adapter but I''m not doing
quite as much as I''d like with it and you certainly can''t call
what
I''m doing "a lot of effort" :)
> I am in the process of persuading management to ditch our current
setup> and get with Ruby on Rails. We currently have a 5GB SQL Server 2000
> database, which we''re pretty reluctant to change.
My situation exactly.
> So obviously management wants to know about the SQL Server
connectivity> in Rails and I figure you''re the resident expert in that area. So
if
you> don''t mind, I''d like to ask a few questions.
>
> Do you use SQL Server on Rails production sites yourself?
Yes. We run a health benefit analysis application with a modest number
of concurrently active users and have been on Rails for almost six
months now. We''ve experienced very few issues related to the adapter,
although I''d love to see it get a bit more attention/refinement.
> Do you know of others doing the same?
I''m not positive but I believe most of the others using the adapter
are using it for in-house apps. I could be wrong, though. Tom Ward
would be a good person to ask or perhaps a quick ping to the Rails
mailing list would be fruitful.
> Is the SQL Server adapter up to par with the MySQL/PostgreSQL
adapters?> (migrations, schema dumps, pagination, whatever).
Yes and no, for the most part ;) It has the same capabilities (all of
the things you mentioned) but is lacking some of the refinement
present in the F/OSS adapters. This is mostly due to the sheer number
of contributors on the F/OSS adapters and the relatively few on the
proprietary ones but there are also some issues that stem from SQL
Server itself. For instance, there''s no equivilent to the fairly
common OFFSET modifier in other systems so paging requires a mess of
ordered sub-selects combined with the TOP modifier.
> What issues do the adapter currently suffer from?
You can see a list of very specific, mostly minor issues here:
http://tinyurl.com/nxkve
>From a more general level, the adapter needs someone to love it and
dedicate a few weeks of time to really refining it. There''s plenty of
room for making the adapter better.
> Has there been made any performance testing/comparisons of the
adapters?
Not that I''m aware of.
> Is there any particular linux distribution you would recommend for the
> webserver, when the SQL Server is version 2000 running on Windows
2000.
We run our production and staging environments on FreeBSD and have
multiple development machines running Fedora Core 4. I''ve shyed away
from Debian based distros because I''ve heard there are multiple issues
with the Ruby packaging. I''ve experienced very few issues on the *NIX
side of the adapter once working FreeTDS/unixODBC/RubyDBI pieces are
in place. Pretty much every distro has had these packaged (and well)
for quite some time now. FreeBSD''s packaging of these components is
exceptional.
> Thanks in advance for your time :)
No prob. I wish the situation was more rosey. As crazy as this sounds,
I''m planning on pushing on Microsoft to either pony up a part-time
developer or put up some money to get someone on it. I''m 99% sure
they''ll decline but it''s worth a shot and I don''t see
a good argument
for why customers who purchase SQL Server should not be able to have
excellent support for it in today''s leading web environments :)
Ryan Tomayko
rtomayko@gmail.com
http://naeblis.cx/rtomayko/
http://lesscode.org/