Hello, I''m a Ruby on Rails beginner, as well as Flash beginner.. Recently started developing a Web application using Ruby on Rails (I''m using InstantRails on Windows..).. Few days ago the Application''s design was changed and now the requirement is a Flash-based Web Application. Now, this brings me to ask a few question: * Can I develop an entire ROR Application with Flash? * How complex would such a thing be, if possible? * Is it realistic at all? I mean.. currently I''m using a few plugins (for example - for authentication, authorization..) - can I keep their functionality while fully-integrating Flash? * Are there any materials I should look on? * In case it''s not a realistic goal (which might be the case here) - What tools can I use to create a "Flashy" design feel to the Web App (buttons, menus, etc)? Can I partially integrate Flash into my App? Are there any recommended Plugins/Gems for it? * Can CSS along with maybe partial flash-integration (assuming it''s possible, not too complex and that there are supportive tools around I can use) - supply me with such a wanted design "feel"? * Any other recommendations? Experiences you can share? Thanks :) (And hope my question wasn''t too clueless..) tino. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
TINODEV wrote:> Hello, > > I''m a Ruby on Rails beginner, as well as Flash beginner.. > Recently started developing a Web application using Ruby on Rails > (I''m using InstantRails on Windows..).. > Few days ago the Application''s design was changed and now the > requirement is a Flash-based Web Application. > > Now, this brings me to ask a few question: > > * Can I develop an entire ROR Application with Flash?Sure. But why would you want to? Flash presents serious usability problems for mobile, iPad, and visually impaired users.> * How complex would such a thing be, if possible? > * Is it realistic at all? I mean.. currently I''m using a few plugins > (for example - for authentication, authorization..) - > can I keep their functionality while fully-integrating Flash?Yes.> * Are there any materials I should look on? >It''s really no different from creating any other Web application, except that your views, instead of being HTML, will be JSON or XML that the Flash file can process.> * In case it''s not a realistic goal (which might be the case here) - > What tools can I use to create a "Flashy" design feel to the Web App > (buttons, menus, etc)?JavaScript. I''d highly recommend going this route instead of straight Flash.> Can I partially integrate Flash into my App? > Are there any recommended Plugins/Gems for it? >You don''t need any.> * Can CSS along with maybe partial flash-integration (assuming it''s > possible, not too complex and that there are supportive tools around I > can use) - > supply me with such a wanted design "feel"?Yes. Again, you probably don''t need any Flash at all.> > > * Any other recommendations? Experiences you can share? > > > Thanks :) > > (And hope my question wasn''t too clueless..) > > tino.Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
flash and rails . . . Flexible Rails Flex 3 on Rails 2 http://www.manning.com/armstrong/ I used to use instant rails but dropped that a while ago. I develop on windows :-/ I wrote post on windows and rails installation. http://johnivanoff.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-ruby-on-rails-setup-on-windows-xp.html I''ve started using rails 3 beta and like it a lot better that 2. I know there''s not a lot of tutorials using rails 3 but there is some good documentation on it. http://guides.rails.info/3_0_release_notes.html http://railscasts.com/ has great screen casts too. Also a good book is Agile Web Development with Rails, 4th Edition http://pragprog.com/titles/rails4/agile-web-development-with-rails a some stuff you learn rails 2 will have to be unlearned in rails 3. but use what you need to get the site going. Cheers, John On Jun 1, 2:20 pm, TINODEV <tinodev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hello, > > I''m a Ruby on Rails beginner, as well as Flash beginner.. > Recently started developing a Web application using Ruby on Rails > (I''m using InstantRails on Windows..).. > Few days ago the Application''s design was changed and now the > requirement is a Flash-based Web Application. > > Now, this brings me to ask a few question: > > * Can I develop an entire ROR Application with Flash? > * How complex would such a thing be, if possible? > * Is it realistic at all? I mean.. currently I''m using a few plugins > (for example - for authentication, authorization..) - > can I keep their functionality while fully-integrating Flash? > * Are there any materials I should look on? > > * In case it''s not a realistic goal (which might be the case here) - > What tools can I use to create a "Flashy" design feel to the Web App > (buttons, menus, etc)? > Can I partially integrate Flash into my App? > Are there any recommended Plugins/Gems for it? > > * Can CSS along with maybe partial flash-integration (assuming it''s > possible, not too complex and that there are supportive tools around I > can use) - > supply me with such a wanted design "feel"? > > * Any other recommendations? Experiences you can share? > > Thanks :) > > (And hope my question wasn''t too clueless..) > > tino.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Many thanks for the answers :) @ Marnen - Appreciate your advice and recommendations as for JavaScript.. I assume you mean JavaScript / Ajax? Anyway, I''ll look into it in more depth... @john - thanks:) looked into the links you gave me.. I was reading a bit before sending my question.. saw mentions of "Flex" around, though had the impression adobe replaced their flex builder with flah builder 4.. (hmm.. might have connect here a few unconnected issues.. Flex will forgive me if this is the case) As for InstantRails - My feeling is sonner than later I''ll try and configure Rails on Windows on my own.. even if only for having a better feeling of it and how to.. When I come to do this (unless I combine moving to Rails 3 at the same time), Your blog entry would be very useful :) Anyway, the reason I haven''t moved to Rails 3 yet (though developing a new application, no backward compatibility needed) is it''s still a beta.. I really want to go into it but need the application to be very stable and don''t have much time to play around (though anyway, I''m learning in parallel), so am not sure I should move right now to Rails 3, unless will hear different feedbacks.. Also, now, having JavaScript in mind and my "view" requirements, maybe Rails 3 can actually make things easier/smoother for me? Hmm.. also, How''s you experience so far using Rails 3 on Windows (assuming you do use it on windows)? Again - many thanks :) tino. On Jun 2, 1:14 am, John Ivanoff <john.ivan...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> flash and rails . . . > Flexible Rails > Flex 3 on Rails 2 > http://www.manning.com/armstrong/ > > I used to use instant rails but dropped that a while ago. > I develop on windows :-/ > I wrote post on windows and rails installation.http://johnivanoff.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-ruby-on-rails-setup-on-wi... > > I''ve started using rails 3 beta and like it a lot better that 2. > I know there''s not a lot of tutorials using rails 3 but there is some > good documentation on it.http://guides.rails.info/3_0_release_notes.html > > http://railscasts.com/has great screen casts too. > > Also a good book is Agile Web Development with Rails, 4th Editionhttp://pragprog.com/titles/rails4/agile-web-development-with-rails > > a some stuff you learn rails 2 will have to be unlearned in rails 3. > > but use what you need to get the site going. > > Cheers, > John > > On Jun 1, 2:20 pm, TINODEV <tinodev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > I''m a Ruby on Rails beginner, as well as Flash beginner.. > > Recently started developing a Web application using Ruby on Rails > > (I''m using InstantRails on Windows..).. > > Few days ago the Application''s design was changed and now the > > requirement is a Flash-based Web Application. > > > Now, this brings me to ask a few question: > > > * Can I develop an entire ROR Application with Flash? > > * How complex would such a thing be, if possible? > > * Is it realistic at all? I mean.. currently I''m using a few plugins > > (for example - for authentication, authorization..) - > > can I keep their functionality while fully-integrating Flash? > > * Are there any materials I should look on? > > > * In case it''s not a realistic goal (which might be the case here) - > > What tools can I use to create a "Flashy" design feel to the Web App > > (buttons, menus, etc)? > > Can I partially integrate Flash into my App? > > Are there any recommended Plugins/Gems for it? > > > * Can CSS along with maybe partial flash-integration (assuming it''s > > possible, not too complex and that there are supportive tools around I > > can use) - > > supply me with such a wanted design "feel"? > > > * Any other recommendations? Experiences you can share? > > > Thanks :) > > > (And hope my question wasn''t too clueless..) > > > tino.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
[Please quote when replying -- it makes the thread easier to follow.] TINODEV wrote:> Many thanks for the answers :) > > @ Marnen - Appreciate your advice and recommendations as for > JavaScript.. > I assume you mean JavaScript / Ajax?I meant what I said. Use Ajax or not as your application demands.> Anyway, I''ll look into it in more depth... >[...]> As for InstantRails - My feeling is sonner than later I''ll try and > configure Rails on Windows on my own.. even if only for having a > better feeling of it and how to..Why? Most Rails devs on Windows seem to use InstantRails.> When I come to do this (unless I combine moving to Rails 3 at the same > time), > Your blog entry would be very useful :) > > Anyway, the reason I haven''t moved to Rails 3 yet (though developing a > new application, no backward compatibility needed) is it''s still a > beta.. I really want to go into it but need the application to be very > stable and don''t have much time to play around (though anyway, I''m > learning in parallel), so am not sure I should move right now to Rails > 3, unless will hear different feedbacks..I''m not sure you should either. Rails 3 has a lot of amazing features, but it''s still prerelease software, and I''m not certain that it''s fully stable yet. But do switch when it''s released!> Also, now, having JavaScript in mind and my "view" requirements, maybe > Rails 3 can actually make things easier/smoother for me? >Well, Rails 2''s JavaScript helpers should be entirely avoided, because they mix JavaScript into your HTML, which is bad coding practice (JavaScript, like CSS, really belongs in separate files from HTML). I understand Rails 3 fixes this.> Hmm.. also, How''s you experience so far using Rails 3 on Windows > (assuming you do use it on windows)? >I certainly don''t use Windows, and I really don''t recommend that anyone else develop on it either. If you can''t get a Mac, at least set up a Linux VM or something. :)> Again - many thanks :) > > tino.Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:> TINODEV wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I''m a Ruby on Rails beginner, as well as Flash beginner.. >> Recently started developing a Web application using Ruby on Rails >> (I''m using InstantRails on Windows..).. >> Few days ago the Application''s design was changed and now the >> requirement is a Flash-based Web Application. >> >> Now, this brings me to ask a few question: >> >> * Can I develop an entire ROR Application with Flash? > > Sure. But why would you want to? Flash presents serious usability > problems for mobile, iPad, and visually impaired users.+1 Haven''t you heard? Flash has passed it''s prime, and is dying a slow and painful death. I don''t even consider Flash when thinking about building web based applications anymore. Not even if I want an application on the web that feels and acts like a desktop application. There are too many excellent solutions today that make use of modern web standards that web browsers can run natively without depending on plugins. A couple of examples: http://cappuccino.org/ # My personal favorite http://www.sproutcore.com/ http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ # My least favorite, but viable The great thing about these solutions is that they don''t care what''s on the server-side. At least that''s the case for the first two in the list, I am only assuming it''s true for GWT, but I''m not certain. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
wrote below :) On Jun 2, 3:20 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> [Please quote when replying -- it makes the thread easier to follow.] > > TINODEV wrote: > > Many thanks for the answers :) > > > @ Marnen - Appreciate your advice and recommendations as for > > JavaScript.. > > I assume you mean JavaScript / Ajax? > > I meant what I said. Use Ajax or not as your application demands.ammm.. ok :) you wrote: "JavaScript. I''d highly recommend going this route instead of straight Flash. "> > > Anyway, I''ll look into it in more depth... > > [...] > > As for InstantRails - My feeling is sonner than later I''ll try and > > configure Rails on Windows on my own.. even if only for having a > > better feeling of it and how to.. > > Why? Most Rails devs on Windows seem to use InstantRails. >Good to know.. as I''m working alone and not experienced, I didn''t know this information..> > When I come to do this (unless I combine moving to Rails 3 at the same > > time), > > Your blog entry would be very useful :) > > > Anyway, the reason I haven''t moved to Rails 3 yet (though developing a > > new application, no backward compatibility needed) is it''s still a > > beta.. I really want to go into it but need the application to be very > > stable and don''t have much time to play around (though anyway, I''m > > learning in parallel), so am not sure I should move right now to Rails > > 3, unless will hear different feedbacks.. > > I''m not sure you should either. Rails 3 has a lot of amazing features, > but it''s still prerelease software, and I''m not certain that it''s fully > stable yet. But do switch when it''s released! >I understand, this was my initial feeling though started doubting it''s relevancy..> > Also, now, having JavaScript in mind and my "view" requirements, maybe > > Rails 3 can actually make things easier/smoother for me? > > Well, Rails 2''s JavaScript helpers should be entirely avoided, because > they mix JavaScript into your HTML, which is bad coding practice > (JavaScript, like CSS, really belongs in separate files from HTML). I > understand Rails 3 fixes this. >Ok.. This got me a bit confused.. You recommended using JavaScript yet not moving just yet to Rails 3, which means I''m still using Rails 2.3.5.. Thus, how should I as you see it, implement / combine Java Script in my app? Or maybe you just advised me in advance to separate Java Script from the rest of my code? ammm.. can you be more specific (hope I''m not asking too many questions..)> > Hmm.. also, How''s you experience so far using Rails 3 on Windows > > (assuming you do use it on windows)? > > I certainly don''t use Windows, and I really don''t recommend that anyone > else develop on it either. If you can''t get a Mac, at least set up a > Linux VM or something. :)I definitely understand.. Will move later on the my road when it''s possible..> > Again - many thanks :) > > > tino. >Best, tino> Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > mar...-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Some of are required to work on windows at work. I do have a
production Rails app running on a windows box. it''s internal and
doesn''t have a high hit rate so I''m ok with it. The box also
runs ASP
classic on it, so it''s running IIS and Apache. I like pain. At home I
use a Mac and prefer it.
I''m not going to get into a mac/win or html5/flash war. We can try to
steer our clients/boss to make better decisions. Enough on that.
Rails 3 has been very stable on my Windows machine and my Mac. I''m
even using Cucumber and rspec for BBD on rails 3.
I like how rails 3 allows you to use unobtrusive JavaScript. (http://
wetherubyists.com/blog/unobtrusive-ajax-with-rails-3)
If one plans ahead and can keep the back end separate from the front
end, you could write a desktop client, iPhone/iPad app, android app
and windows mobile app to access web services.
I know rails 3 is in beta but I would suggest going with it. I don''t
know why I find it easier but I do. maybe it''s because in rails 3
I''d
type
rails g scaffold user username:string password:string
easier to type than (remember this is on windows)
ruby script/generate scaffold user username:string password:string
I know it''s not that much but it is less.
I''ve used rails since it''s 0.9 days but in mo means a guru.
side note peepcode has some really good screen casts too http://peepcode.com/
Also noticed this website today. http://isuckatruby.com/
I also have a rails 3 "app" with Authlogic and
declarative_authorization.
Disclaimer: Not all the rspec tests have been written and I need to re-
factor all the tests. So please be kind when ripping it to shreds.
http://github.com/johnivanoff/auth_with_roles
Cheers,
John
On Jun 2, 9:17 am, Robert Walker
<li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
> > TINODEV wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I''m a Ruby on Rails beginner, as well as Flash beginner..
> >> Recently started developing a Web application using Ruby on Rails
> >> (I''m using InstantRails on Windows..)..
> >> Few days ago the Application''s design was changed and now
the
> >> requirement is a Flash-based Web Application.
>
> >> Now, this brings me to ask a few question:
>
> >> * Can I develop an entire ROR Application with Flash?
>
> > Sure. But why would you want to? Flash presents serious usability
> > problems for mobile, iPad, and visually impaired users.
>
> +1
>
> Haven''t you heard? Flash has passed it''s prime, and is
dying a slow and
> painful death. I don''t even consider Flash when thinking about
building
> web based applications anymore. Not even if I want an application on the
> web that feels and acts like a desktop application. There are too many
> excellent solutions today that make use of modern web standards that web
> browsers can run natively without depending on plugins.
>
> A couple of examples:http://cappuccino.org/ # My personal
favoritehttp://www.sproutcore.com/http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ # My least
favorite, but viable
>
> The great thing about these solutions is that they don''t care
what''s on
> the server-side. At least that''s the case for the first two in the
list,
> I am only assuming it''s true for GWT, but I''m not
certain.
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Robert Walker wrote: [...]> Haven''t you heard? Flash has passed it''s prime, and is dying a slow and > painful death.I hope that''s not true. Flash is a great tool for sites that require it (see http://www.openstreetmap.org for an example of Flash used appropriately -- with Rails, as it happens). But I''d estimate that well over 90% of sites using Flash shouldn''t be.> I don''t even consider Flash when thinking about building > web based applications anymore. Not even if I want an application on the > web that feels and acts like a desktop application. There are too many > excellent solutions today that make use of modern web standards that web > browsers can run natively without depending on plugins.Exactly.> > A couple of examples: > http://cappuccino.org/ # My personal favoriteReally? I''ve heard bad things about it.> http://www.sproutcore.com/ > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ # My least favorite, but viable > > The great thing about these solutions is that they don''t care what''s on > the server-side. At least that''s the case for the first two in the list, > I am only assuming it''s true for GWT, but I''m not certain.AFAIK, it is. GWT compiles to client-side JavaScript. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
TINODEV wrote: [...]>> > Also, now, having JavaScript in mind and my "view" requirements, maybe >> > Rails 3 can actually make things easier/smoother for me? >> >> Well, Rails 2''s JavaScript helpers should be entirely avoided, because >> they mix JavaScript into your HTML, which is bad coding practice >> (JavaScript, like CSS, really belongs in separate files from HTML). �I >> understand Rails 3 fixes this. >> > > Ok.. This got me a bit confused.. > You recommended using JavaScript yet not moving just yet to Rails 3, > which means I''m still using Rails 2.3.5.. > Thus, how should I as you see it, implement / combine Java Script in > my app?Write JavaScript directly, not with Rails'' helpers.> Or maybe you just advised me in advance to separate Java Script from > the rest > of my code?Correct.> ammm.. can you be more specific (hope I''m not asking too > many questions..)What part don''t you understand? Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:>> A couple of examples: >> http://cappuccino.org/ # My personal favorite > > Really? I''ve heard bad things about it.You forget, I also hack around at Objective C/Cocoa code, so I find Objective-J fascinating and very cool. I''m not at all surprised you''ve heard bad things about it. It''s certainly not for everyone, especially if they don''t like Obj-C. The negative, I''m sure, is amplified beyond the norm from typical Rubists, who take issue with verbose language syntax in general. I''m fully aware that Cappuccino will likely never become a main stream development platform. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Hi tino, I use Flex (don''t like the Flash IDE - especially that stinking Timeline ) with Rails all the time - no problems. Being on Windows, I use InstantRails, and Aptana Studio as an editor, although I do as much as I can now via the command line. I looked into Aptana due to it being built on Eclipse the same as Flex, no other reason. I have not had any problems so until I do, being Pragmatic :) I''ll stay as I am for now. Though I am looking to get hold of a Mac box as soon as I can........ Flash Builder 4 is the new Flex 3, while Flash Pro 5 is in CS5 so it looks like Adobe will continue to improve and push Flash/Flex, I bet there will be more to come..... My set up is to use Flex for the front end entirely, and then Rails for the back. All my swf''s are on one server that would host the domain, while Rails is on a cloud so I can ramp up the resources when necessary for Rails - which is the most intensive part of the App. I would recommend looking at Flexible Rails, and download a trial of Flash Builder 4 to go with it - if it is the same as Flex 3, you should get a 60 day trial rather than the usual 30. It was Flexible Rails that got me looking at Rails in the first place, and I''ve loved it ever since. If you look into RemoteObject on the Flash side, it makes it VERY simple to send objects to Rails via RubyAMF - get the FlexibleRails branch from : http://rubyamf.googlecode.com/svn/branches/flexiblerails/rubyamf One thing I did find, was that I was creating model value objects (VO''s) in actionscript that my UI would use, but they were the same as the models in Rails. This was duplication - first I created the Rails model, then I wrote the AS VO - which was wasting good development time - so I wrote my first gem - but isn''t really ready to post yet on Github - it needs refactoring a little along with more useful comments and docs). It hooks into the Rails Scaffolder and creates all my VO''s for Flex as I create my models in Rails. It also keeps a few AS Singletons updated as necessary as I add new Models, and keeps an AS Map file uptodate which maps singulars and plurals as well as the belongsTo, habtm etc relationships between the AS VO''s. The VO''s are sent via RemoteObject to the Rails Controller, and passed to the relevant Rails Model for processing. It''s all pretty simple when you get the hang of it. Personally, I wouldn''t try doing anything major in the Flash IDE - especially if you may not be the only one working on the project going forward - Flex is far more suitable to larger projects, and multi- developer teams. As far as not using Flash because of iPhones etc, I guess it depends on your target market and the application itself. Are your users going to want to access your services from a mobile handest? I have a mobile running Android (not the latest version) and it struggles to display e- mails from this group, and not all web pages are viewable (particularly from this group) - regardless of Flash content or not - so I wouldn''t make a decision on the technology used on your full blown web site app based on the mobile market. Mobile Apps, not web sites, are the way forward in my, very humble, view. Instead of trying to develop one web site/application front end for all devices, why not make your main site - the one which will do all the attracting of customers - exactly as is required for that particular purpose. If you then need to provide access to services for the mobile market, create the relevant App for the relevant handset OS. With Rails, you can create the one Application on the server, then specific front end apps for each market you are targeting - each of which could connect with Rails. One final thought with regard to Flex, is that if you develop correctly with Flex, ie re-usable code, you then build up your own libraries of code to just drop-in future applications. I haven''t looked into Rails views at all because I have everything I need in Flex, but from what I did read, it appears you have to create all your views from scratch for each Rails application - that doesn''t interest me - and am happy to be corrected if wrong - I prefer to use my own custom built AS components, controllers, managers to display and control the view. And just remembered you mentioned CSS - well Flex is completely CSS compatible. That''s my 2p worth, hope you found some of it useful. Regards Paul On Jun 2, 4:45 pm, TINODEV <tinodev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> wrote below :) > > On Jun 2, 3:20 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > [Please quote when replying -- it makes the thread easier to follow.] > > > TINODEV wrote: > > > Many thanks for the answers :) > > > > @ Marnen - Appreciate your advice and recommendations as for > > > JavaScript.. > > > I assume you mean JavaScript / Ajax? > > > I meant what I said. Use Ajax or not as your application demands. > > ammm.. ok :) > > you wrote: "JavaScript. I''d highly recommend going this route instead > > of straight > Flash. " > > > > > > Anyway, I''ll look into it in more depth... > > > [...] > > > As for InstantRails - My feeling is sonner than later I''ll try and > > > configure Rails on Windows on my own.. even if only for having a > > > better feeling of it and how to.. > > > Why? Most Rails devs on Windows seem to use InstantRails. > > Good to know.. as I''m working alone and not experienced, I didn''t know > this information.. > > > > When I come to do this (unless I combine moving to Rails 3 at the same > > > time), > > > Your blog entry would be very useful :) > > > > Anyway, the reason I haven''t moved to Rails 3 yet (though developing a > > > new application, no backward compatibility needed) is it''s still a > > > beta.. I really want to go into it but need the application to be very > > > stable and don''t have much time to play around (though anyway, I''m > > > learning in parallel), so am not sure I should move right now to Rails > > > 3, unless will hear different feedbacks.. > > > I''m not sure you should either. Rails 3 has a lot of amazing features, > > but it''s still prerelease software, and I''m not certain that it''s fully > > stable yet. But do switch when it''s released! > > I understand, this was my initial feeling though started doubting it''s > relevancy.. > > > > Also, now, having JavaScript in mind and my "view" requirements, maybe > > > Rails 3 can actually make things easier/smoother for me? > > > Well, Rails 2''s JavaScript helpers should be entirely avoided, because > > they mix JavaScript into your HTML, which is bad coding practice > > (JavaScript, like CSS, really belongs in separate files from HTML). I > > understand Rails 3 fixes this. > > Ok.. This got me a bit confused.. > You recommended using JavaScript yet not moving just yet to Rails 3, > which means I''m still using Rails 2.3.5.. > Thus, how should I as you see it, implement / combine Java Script in > my app? > Or maybe you just advised me in advance to separate Java Script from > the rest > of my code? ammm.. can you be more specific (hope I''m not asking too > many questions..) > > > > Hmm.. also, How''s you experience so far using Rails 3 on Windows > > > (assuming you do use it on windows)? > > > I certainly don''t use Windows, and I really don''t recommend that anyone > > else develop on it either. If you can''t get a Mac, at least set up a > > Linux VM or something. :) > > I definitely understand.. > Will move later on the my road when it''s possible.. > > > > Again - many thanks :) > > > > tino. > > Best, > > tino > > > > > Best, > > -- > > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > > mar...-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
paul h wrote:> Hi tino, > > I use Flex (don''t like the Flash IDE - especially that stinking > Timeline ) with Rails all the time - no problems. Being on Windows, I > use InstantRails, and Aptana Studio as an editor, although I do as > much as I can now via the command line. I looked into Aptana due to it > being built on Eclipse the same as Flex, no other reason. I have not > had any problems so until I do, being Pragmatic :) I''ll stay as I am > for now.I recommend against Aptana. It was promising, but never really fulfilled that promise. Anyway, Rails is better without an IDE. Just use a good text editor (I like KomodoEdit). [...]> As far as not using Flash because of iPhones etc, I guess it depends > on your target market and the application itself. Are your users going > to want to access your services from a mobile handest? I have a mobile > running Android (not the latest version) and it struggles to display e- > mails from this group, and not all web pages are viewable > (particularly from this group) - regardless of Flash content or not - > so I wouldn''t make a decision on the technology used on your full > blown web site app based on the mobile market. Mobile Apps, not web > sites, are the way forward in my, very humble, view. >I believe you are 98% wrong here. With the profusion of mobile operating systems and browsers, it is now more important than ever to develop in standards-compliant HTML that will work effortlessly on all client devices. Taking my own use case (which may or may not be typical), I do a heck of a lot of Web browsing on my iPhone. The browser is excellent and capable of dealing with just about any standards-compliant HTML and JS. If your site requires me to download a special-purpose app, whereas your competitor''s works flawlessly in the Web browser, which one do you think I''ll use (hint:it won''t be yours)?> Instead of trying to develop one web site/application front end for > all devices, why not make your main site - the one which will do all > the attracting of customers - exactly as is required for that > particular purpose. If you then need to provide access to services for > the mobile market, create the relevant App for the relevant handset > OS.Hell no. There are at least 4 advanced phone operating systems one has to develop for if one goes this route. Standards-compliant HTML works everywhere.> With Rails, you can create the one Application on the server, then > specific front end apps for each market you are targeting - each of > which could connect with Rails.You certainly can. But in most cases, it''s probably extra work to no real advantage. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Ok.. Took me a while to answer and try to figure out what direction was suggested by each one of you.. Replying here in general, but referring to ideas, links and suggestions contributed by you all, so - thanks, everyone! :) You all supplied me with valuable information.. Yet due to multiple opinions / suggestions / different implementation advices, I''m again not sure where to be heading regarding the app''s UI.. As I''m developing on Windows, remarks concerning Objective-C, Cocoa, putting Cappuccino at the same sentence.. make me think this is not the things for me right now even if I wanted to (wish it was).. Not sure about SproutCore.. I understand the pros and cons of using Flex/ Flash, though was nice to hear there are developers out there who do use it (on windows), in case I do follow this direction... After better understanding the suggestions, my tendency (or wish at least) is to follow tools / technologies which will make my app more likely to be accessible on most platform / following Standards- compliant HTML.. That being said, I do need to separate between my wishes to further study and follow your suggestions and the app''s deadlines.. for the long run, I understand I should be looking into writing JavaScript independent code myself, or try Rails 3''s JavaScript Helpers when it''s stability is more probable BUT - right now I have no JavaScript knowledge or experience.. could learn things, but will take time - time I''m not sure I have right now.. therefore, unless this knowledge to start things from scratch is crucial in order to use JavaScript in my app I AM (sigh) looking for tools / examples / advices to shorten my way to the required app''s UI.. So - basically asking here for more detailed information and/or help if you can supply me with some... Thanks, a lot :) tino. On Jun 3, 1:03 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:> paul h wrote: > > Hi tino, > > > I use Flex (don''t like the Flash IDE - especially that stinking > > Timeline ) with Rails all the time - no problems. Being on Windows, I > > use InstantRails, and Aptana Studio as an editor, although I do as > > much as I can now via the command line. I looked into Aptana due to it > > being built on Eclipse the same as Flex, no other reason. I have not > > had any problems so until I do, being Pragmatic :) I''ll stay as I am > > for now. > > I recommend against Aptana. It was promising, but never really > fulfilled that promise. Anyway, Rails is better without an IDE. Just > use a good text editor (I like KomodoEdit). > > [...] > > > As far as not using Flash because of iPhones etc, I guess it depends > > on your target market and the application itself. Are your users going > > to want to access your services from a mobile handest? I have a mobile > > running Android (not the latest version) and it struggles to display e- > > mails from this group, and not all web pages are viewable > > (particularly from this group) - regardless of Flash content or not - > > so I wouldn''t make a decision on the technology used on your full > > blown web site app based on the mobile market. Mobile Apps, not web > > sites, are the way forward in my, very humble, view. > > I believe you are 98% wrong here. With the profusion of mobile > operating systems and browsers, it is now more important than ever to > develop in standards-compliant HTML that will work effortlessly on all > client devices. > > Taking my own use case (which may or may not be typical), I do a heck of > a lot of Web browsing on my iPhone. The browser is excellent and > capable of dealing with just about any standards-compliant HTML and JS. > If your site requires me to download a special-purpose app, whereas your > competitor''s works flawlessly in the Web browser, which one do you think > I''ll use (hint:it won''t be yours)? > > > Instead of trying to develop one web site/application front end for > > all devices, why not make your main site - the one which will do all > > the attracting of customers - exactly as is required for that > > particular purpose. If you then need to provide access to services for > > the mobile market, create the relevant App for the relevant handset > > OS. > > Hell no. There are at least 4 advanced phone operating systems one has > to develop for if one goes this route. Standards-compliant HTML works > everywhere. > > > With Rails, you can create the one Application on the server, then > > specific front end apps for each market you are targeting - each of > > which could connect with Rails. > > You certainly can. But in most cases, it''s probably extra work to no > real advantage. > > Best, > -- > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > mar...-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 3 June 2010 09:30, TINODEV <tinodevexp-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Ok.. > > Took me a while to answer and try to figure out what direction was > suggested by each one of you.. > > Replying here in general, but referring to ideas, links and > suggestions contributed by you all, so - thanks, everyone! :) > > You all supplied me with valuable information.. > Yet due to multiple opinions / suggestions / different implementation > advices, > I''m again not sure where to be heading regarding the app''s UI.. > > As I''m developing on Windows, remarks concerning Objective-C, Cocoa, > putting Cappuccino at the same sentence.. make me think this is not > the things for me right now even if I wanted to (wish it was)..That is not a good reason for rejecting these tools. If you decided that this was technically the best solution (I am not saying it is) and developing under Windows makes this difficult, then don''t use Windows. Colin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Just my $.02 from my own experience... If you are in the same situation I usually am in your direction will most likely be decided for you by your boss/client, be it technology, be it tools, be it whatever else. This will probably mean that you will also have deadlines to fulfill. In that case I would recommend you go with what you know or can know that will be useful and that will make you and your project succeed. That might be using Rails generated JS / other tools/technologies that you can use now. Don''t try to use stuff you still don''t know if you are under time constraints or you will never get there. On Jun 3, 4:30 am, TINODEV <tinodev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Ok.. > > Took me a while to answer and try to figure out what direction was > suggested by each one of you.. > > Replying here in general, but referring to ideas, links and > suggestions contributed by you all, so - thanks, everyone! :) > > You all supplied me with valuable information.. > Yet due to multiple opinions / suggestions / different implementation > advices, > I''m again not sure where to be heading regarding the app''s UI.. > > As I''m developing on Windows, remarks concerning Objective-C, Cocoa, > putting Cappuccino at the same sentence.. make me think this is not > the things for me right now even if I wanted to (wish it was).. Not > sure about SproutCore.. I understand the pros and cons of using Flex/ > Flash, though was nice to hear there are developers out there who do > use it (on windows), in case I do follow this direction... > After better understanding the suggestions, my tendency (or wish at > least) is to follow tools / technologies which will make my app more > likely to be accessible on most platform / following Standards- > compliant HTML.. > > That being said, I do need to separate between my wishes to further > study and follow your suggestions and the app''s deadlines.. > for the long run, I understand I should be looking into writing > JavaScript independent code myself, or try Rails 3''s JavaScript > Helpers when it''s stability is more probable > > BUT - right now I have no JavaScript knowledge or experience.. could > learn things, but will take time - time I''m not sure I have right > now.. therefore, unless this knowledge to start things from scratch is > crucial in order to use JavaScript in my app I AM (sigh) looking for > tools / examples / advices to shorten my way to the required app''s > UI.. > > So - basically asking here for more detailed information and/or help > if you can supply me with some... > > Thanks, a lot :) > > tino. > > On Jun 3, 1:03 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <li...-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > paul h wrote: > > > Hi tino, > > > > I use Flex (don''t like the Flash IDE - especially that stinking > > > Timeline ) with Rails all the time - no problems. Being on Windows, I > > > use InstantRails, and Aptana Studio as an editor, although I do as > > > much as I can now via the command line. I looked into Aptana due to it > > > being built on Eclipse the same as Flex, no other reason. I have not > > > had any problems so until I do, being Pragmatic :) I''ll stay as I am > > > for now. > > > I recommend against Aptana. It was promising, but never really > > fulfilled that promise. Anyway, Rails is better without an IDE. Just > > use a good text editor (I like KomodoEdit). > > > [...] > > > > As far as not using Flash because of iPhones etc, I guess it depends > > > on your target market and the application itself. Are your users going > > > to want to access your services from a mobile handest? I have a mobile > > > running Android (not the latest version) and it struggles to display e- > > > mails from this group, and not all web pages are viewable > > > (particularly from this group) - regardless of Flash content or not - > > > so I wouldn''t make a decision on the technology used on your full > > > blown web site app based on the mobile market. Mobile Apps, not web > > > sites, are the way forward in my, very humble, view. > > > I believe you are 98% wrong here. With the profusion of mobile > > operating systems and browsers, it is now more important than ever to > > develop in standards-compliant HTML that will work effortlessly on all > > client devices. > > > Taking my own use case (which may or may not be typical), I do a heck of > > a lot of Web browsing on my iPhone. The browser is excellent and > > capable of dealing with just about any standards-compliant HTML and JS. > > If your site requires me to download a special-purpose app, whereas your > > competitor''s works flawlessly in the Web browser, which one do you think > > I''ll use (hint:it won''t be yours)? > > > > Instead of trying to develop one web site/application front end for > > > all devices, why not make your main site - the one which will do all > > > the attracting of customers - exactly as is required for that > > > particular purpose. If you then need to provide access to services for > > > the mobile market, create the relevant App for the relevant handset > > > OS. > > > Hell no. There are at least 4 advanced phone operating systems one has > > to develop for if one goes this route. Standards-compliant HTML works > > everywhere. > > > > With Rails, you can create the one Application on the server, then > > > specific front end apps for each market you are targeting - each of > > > which could connect with Rails. > > > You certainly can. But in most cases, it''s probably extra work to no > > real advantage. > > > Best, > > -- > > Marnen Laibow-Koserhttp://www.marnen.org > > mar...-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
True, but from what I can gather, the poster doesn''t have any experience when it comes to interfacing a Rails backend with a Flash frontend. Except maybe for the bare minimum, it would still require some fairly good knowledge of ActionScript. Also, serving the data in whatever format Flash will grok, whether that''s XML or anything else, is also out of the scope of a lot of examples out there. What''s even more, due to Rails'' security measures such as the authenticity token etc, getting Flash involved also requires you to know about Rack Middlewares. I might be wrong here, but it seems he''s saying: "I don''t know any of the tools, I''ve played around a bit with Flash and some Rails examples, but I don''t know anything. Can you advise me on something that will magically get my application done?". To be honest, I don''t see it happening, and accepting a project with a deadline where you have no idea on how to get it started... not such a good idea. Web development is, as we all know, very challenging to get into since you need to know both serverside and clientside technology quite well. It''s not like you can jump in and expect to stay afloat if you don''t know exactly how everything ties together. On 03 Jun 2010, at 11:47, pepe wrote:> Just my $.02 from my own experience... > > If you are in the same situation I usually am in your direction will > most likely be decided for you by your boss/client, be it technology, > be it tools, be it whatever else. This will probably mean that you > will also have deadlines to fulfill. In that case I would recommend > you go with what you know or can know that will be useful and that > will make you and your project succeed. That might be using Rails > generated JS / other tools/technologies that you can use now. > > Don''t try to use stuff you still don''t know if you are under time > constraints or you will never get there. > > On Jun 3, 4:30 am, TINODEV <tinodev...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> BUT - right now I have no JavaScript knowledge or experience.. could >> learn things, but will take time - time I''m not sure I have right >> now.. therefore, unless this knowledge to start things from scratch >> is >> crucial in order to use JavaScript in my app I AM (sigh) looking for >> tools / examples / advices to shorten my way to the required app''s >> UI.. >> >> So - basically asking here for more detailed information and/or help >> if you can supply me with some...Best regards Peter De Berdt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Jun 3, 5:56 am, Peter De Berdt <peter.de.be...-LPO8gxj9N8aZIoH1IeqzKA@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I might be wrong here, but it seems he''s saying: "I don''t know any of > the tools, I''ve played around a bit with Flash and some Rails > examples, but I don''t know anything. Can you advise me on something > that will magically get my application done?". To be honest, I don''t > see it happening, and accepting a project with a deadline where you > have no idea on how to get it started... not such a good idea. Web > development is, as we all know, very challenging to get into since you > need to know both serverside and clientside technology quite well. > It''s not like you can jump in and expect to stay afloat if you don''t > know exactly how everything ties together.Very true, that''s why I mentioned Rails generated JS because you don''t actually need to know JS to start using it if you let Rails generate it for you. True, as Marnen mentioned the generated code is not really pretty, but it works and if you ask a boss or customer what is that they prefer, pretty vs. working code, I can tell you that not 100 but 200% of them will choose working. ;) The good thing about Rails generated JS is that there are good tutorials and books. I personally love the Ajax on Rails book by O''Reilly, if it''s of any use to the OP. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
TINODEV wrote:> Ok.. > > Took me a while to answer and try to figure out what direction was > suggested by each one of you.. > > Replying here in general, but referring to ideas, links and > suggestions contributed by you all, so - thanks, everyone! :)You''re welcome. However, note that you seem to be going about your technical decision process in the wrong way, and will probably wind up in a bad place as a result.> > You all supplied me with valuable information.. > Yet due to multiple opinions / suggestions / different implementation > advices, > I''m again not sure where to be heading regarding the app''s UI.. >Then be agile and start simple. Use HTML (with JavaScript as necessary) until you can establish that it won''t do the trick.> As I''m developing on Windows, remarks concerning Objective-C, Cocoa, > putting Cappuccino at the same sentence.. make me think this is not > the things for me right now even if I wanted to (wish it was)..Then you completely misunderstood. Cappuccino is a JavaScript framework inspired by Obj-C. There''s nothing OS-specific in it AFAIK. Really, take the initiative and do some research!> Not > sure about SproutCore.. I understand the pros and cons of using Flex/ > Flash, though was nice to hear there are developers out there who do > use it (on windows), in case I do follow this direction... > After better understanding the suggestions, my tendency (or wish at > least) is to follow tools / technologies which will make my app more > likely to be accessible on most platform / following Standards- > compliant HTML..I think that''s a good choice. But that shouldn''t be surprising. :)> > That being said, I do need to separate between my wishes to further > study and follow your suggestions and the app''s deadlines.. > for the long run, I understand I should be looking into writing > JavaScript independent code myself, or try Rails 3''s JavaScript > Helpers when it''s stability is more probable > > BUT - right now I have no JavaScript knowledge or experience.. could > learn things, but will take time - time I''m not sure I have right > now.. therefore, unless this knowledge to start things from scratch is > crucial in order to use JavaScript in my app I AM (sigh) looking for > tools / examples / advices to shorten my way to the required app''s > UI..You''re asking the impossible. You can''t write a Web app without knowing HTML. You can''t write a Rails app without knowing Ruby. You can''t rely on Rails'' JavaScript helpers to keep you from learning JavaScript, any more than you can rely on ActiveRecord to keep you from learning SQL. If you intend to write this application, you must understand the technologies you''ll be using. There is no shortcut. I recommend reading David Flanagan''s "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" -- it''s apparently the only JS book that actually teaches proper programming practice -- and I''ve also heard good things about Doug Crockford''s "JavaScript: The Good Parts".> > So - basically asking here for more detailed information and/or help > if you can supply me with some... > > Thanks, a lot :) > > tino.Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
pepe wrote: [...]> Very true, that''s why I mentioned Rails generated JS because you don''t > actually need to know JS to start using it if you let Rails generate > it for you.No! That will only land you in trouble without you knowing enough JS to get *out* of trouble. You have to understand what Rails is producing.> True, as Marnen mentioned the generated code is not really > pretty, but it worksIt''s not about pretty. It''s about proper architecture. Inline JS is improper architecture.> and if you ask a boss or customer what is that > they prefer, pretty vs. working code, I can tell you that not 100 but > 200% of them will choose working. ;)I don''t give my clients that choice. They get properly designed code that works. It''s not up to the client to make technical decisions.> > The good thing about Rails generated JS is that there are good > tutorials and books. I personally love the Ajax on Rails book by > O''Reilly, if it''s of any use to the OP.What''s so hard about learning JavaScript? Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org marnen-sbuyVjPbboAdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
> > > and if you ask a boss or customer what is that > > they prefer, pretty vs. working code, I can tell you that not 100 but > > 200% of them will choose working. ;) > > I don''t give my clients that choice. They get properly designed code > that works. It''s not up to the client to make technical decisions. >I agree with this sooo much! However, if the client is large enough it''s very easy/tempting to just do as they ask... Cheers, Andy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 3 June 2010 11:49, pepe <Pepe-gUAqH5+0sKL6V6G2DxALlg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> if you ask a boss or customer what is that > they prefer, pretty vs. working code, I can tell you that not 100 but > 200% of them will choose working. ;)Erroneous. You''re not giving them all the information needed to make their choice. Sure, quick and dirty can have its place; but by using it you''re introducing Technical Debt [1], which in the long run can cost them an awful lot more than had the code been written in a well-designed fashion in the first place. It''s not a cut ''n dried choice between pretty and working (and trust me, I''ve had to wade through ugly and broken enough times)... it''s much more complicated than that, and needs to be presented to decision makers as such. The only way I use if people want a simple choice is to say there are three options: * quickly produced * well written * cheap price ... then give them an option to pick which two (and they can *only* have two) of the three they want. This makes it clear, that if they choose Quick and Cheap, they will not be getting Good. Returning to the technical debt argument; I''ve seen this in practice many times. It''s certainly frustrating when boss/customer ignores sense and goes for short-term gain... but there is always the option of working for other bosses/customers :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Michael Pavling wrote:> * quickly produced > * well written > * cheap price > ... then give them an option to pick which two (and they can *only* > have two) of the three they want.This is close, but the most useful variable was left out of this list. The choices are actually: 1. Time 2. Quality 3. Cost 4. Scope Stakeholders are given their choice of three and development controls the forth. I only mention this because scope is actually the most "sensitive" of the four variables. Quality is relatively ineffective at controlling the other three, yet at the same time can profoundly affect the other three. In other words you can''t really "buy" time by lowering quality. Lowering quality in an effort to reduce time will likely have the opposite effect. Code of poor quality, in the long run, takes longer to write than quality code. Time in many situations is fairly fixed. The product needs to ship within some reasonable "budgeted" time scale. Hence time can also be an ineffective control variable. Cost is a somewhat tricky control variable. In some situations it can effectively control the other three, but in other cases it is essentially fixed, and as such can''t be used reliably for controlling the other three variables. Throwing more resources (programmers) at project in trouble does not guarantee success. Scope can often be the real key control variable for a large percentage of projects. Scope can "buy" you time. Often building less (at first) can deliver a working product, meeting or exceeding quality requirements, within the budget of time and cost. This is the core principal of agile software design methodologies. The feedback gained from early, small, releases will also have a profound impact on all four of these variables. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:>> As I''m developing on Windows, remarks concerning Objective-C, Cocoa, >> putting Cappuccino at the same sentence.. make me think this is not >> the things for me right now even if I wanted to (wish it was).. > > Then you completely misunderstood. Cappuccino is a JavaScript framework > inspired by Obj-C. There''s nothing OS-specific in it AFAIK. Really, > take the initiative and do some research!Precisely correct. Cappuccino/Obj-J was designed by and for Obj-C/Cocoa developers to be as much like developing Cocoa-like applications that run in a web browser on top of JavaScript. The only requirement is a web browser that has a reasonably modern JavaScript engine. That pretty much covers all current releases of web browsers on any and all platforms. I really only mentioned it, because it''s the choice I would make, and that it does demonstrate the power and flexibility of the JavaScript language. Check out this demo to see just how "desktop-like" Cappuccino applications really can be: http://280slides.com/Editor/ Keep in mind that this application is entirely web standards compliant.>> Not >> sure about SproutCore.. I understand the pros and cons of using Flex/ >> Flash, though was nice to hear there are developers out there who do >> use it (on windows), in case I do follow this direction... >> After better understanding the suggestions, my tendency (or wish at >> least) is to follow tools / technologies which will make my app more >> likely to be accessible on most platform / following Standards- >> compliant HTML.. > > I think that''s a good choice. But that shouldn''t be surprising. :)I believe SproutCore is an excellent choice for most web developers. It can still produce really desktop-like applications that run on top of JavaScript, but still be somewhat friendly to web style development. Whereas Cappuccino "feels" nothing like web application development. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
The first "app" you wrote was it "perfect"? mine wasn''t. We''ve all gotten where we are from writing code and learning best practices. Sometimes we have to just jump in and get it done. I don''t like doing that, but sometimes you have to. If all I did was read tutorials and best practices, I''d never write any code. In three years we will look at code and say "Why was this written in XHTML and not HTML5? What were they thinking?" look at these sites (I did not make these!) http://www.lingscars.com/ http://www.yvettesbridalformal.com/ really?!? Most people, read: non-programmers, don''t care about the code. We do. We care how it''s created. Learning Rails, which means learning some Ruby and OOP too, is quite a bit. Learning Flex on top of it is a lot to chew, in my opinion. It can be done. Again the Flexible Rails Flex 3 on Rails 2 http://www.manning.com/armstrong/ What it sounds like you''re wanting to do is a good choice. it walks you through of setting everything up. It uses Flex 3 and Rails 2. It creates a "wonderful" to-do list. but you''ll get the jist on how to get Flex and Rails to talk to each other. Also have you checked out any flex groups? There should be tips there too. This one is based in Dallas TX http://groups.google.com/group/d-flexorg Cheers, John On Jun 3, 7:38 am, Michael Pavling <pavl...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 3 June 2010 11:49, pepe <P...-gUAqH5+0sKL6V6G2DxALlg@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > if you ask a boss or customer what is that > > they prefer, pretty vs. working code, I can tell you that not 100 but > > 200% of them will choose working. ;) > > Erroneous. You''re not giving them all the information needed to make > their choice. > > Sure, quick and dirty can have its place; but by using it you''re > introducing Technical Debt [1], which in the long run can cost them an > awful lot more than had the code been written in a well-designed > fashion in the first place. > It''s not a cut ''n dried choice between pretty and working (and trust > me, I''ve had to wade through ugly and broken enough times)... it''s > much more complicated than that, and needs to be presented to decision > makers as such. The only way I use if people want a simple choice is > to say there are three options: > * quickly produced > * well written > * cheap price > ... then give them an option to pick which two (and they can *only* > have two) of the three they want. > > This makes it clear, that if they choose Quick and Cheap, they will > not be getting Good. > > Returning to the technical debt argument; I''ve seen this in practice > many times. It''s certainly frustrating when boss/customer ignores > sense and goes for short-term gain... but there is always the option > of working for other bosses/customers :-) > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On 03 Jun 2010, at 16:22, John Ivanoff wrote:> The first "app" you wrote was it "perfect"? mine wasn''t. We''ve all > gotten where we are from writing code and learning best practices. > Sometimes we have to just jump in and get it done. I don''t like doing > that, but sometimes you have to. If all I did was read tutorials and > best practices, I''d never write any code. In three years we will look > at code and say "Why was this written in XHTML and not HTML5? What > were they thinking?"True, we all have to start somewhere. However, my first few projects, or should I say failed experiments, never went out to paying customers. There''s no reason any customer should pay for the inexperience of the developer, whether that''s in short term (everything taking a lot more time than needed) or in the long term (plenty of obscure bugs due to no testing, bad code and no easy way to add functionality to the app in question). My first few Rails projects were internal use apps, and yes, I learned a lot from them, but I''m very happy they never went outside of the company :-) They are good for one thing though: when I do a seminar for students or beginning web developers, I like to pick out some examples from that old code to show how it SHOULDN''T be done :-) When I said database-backed web development is quite challenging, I was talking about the sheer number of languages and environments you have to feel comfortable with to produce a good product: database structures, a feel for good design, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Ruby, Rails, OO programming. Bringing something like Flash into the equation replaces HTML, CSS and Javascript with Flash and ActionScript, but imo makes implementing the backend harder. I know I''m better off now and enjoy what I''m doing, but developing desktop applications was easier in many ways (and awfully annoying in other ways, but still), especially when it comes to one IDE with a GUI design environment etc. Whether Flash is a good way to go or not is up to the original poster, but unless he''s very experienced with Flash (and I don''t mean the timeline, tweening and transforming objects etc) and especially ActionScript, I would seriously advise against it. It may be easy to throw together some Flex interface, but there''s still a lot to do behind the scenes that''s actually just as hard as going for a plugin- less solution. Best regards Peter De Berdt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Peter De Berdt wrote:> However, my first few projects, or should I say failed experiments, > never went out to paying customers. There''s no reason any customer > should pay for the inexperience of the developer, whether that''s in > short term (everything taking a lot more time than needed) or in the > long term (plenty of obscure bugs due to no testing, bad code and no > easy way to add functionality to the app in question).I don''t entirely agree with this. Unless you''re just creating "cookie-cutter" style applications that can be completely predicted up-front, the customer IS paying for the inexperience of the developer. Nearly every application I''ve built in my long development career has required learning something new, something I''m inexperienced with. Whether that be related to the problem domain the software targets, or the technologies required to produce the desired result. As software developers we are as much researchers as we are developers. Matching the right technologies to solve a problem is a major part of what we do. Often the "right" technology is something we are not currently familiar with. What distinguishes great developers is the ability, and willingness, to take on new challenges, and new technologies as they present themselves. If learning a new technology is part of providing my customer with the best fit solution, you bet I''m going to charge them for that. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.