search for: 32lpuo7bzba

looking at the unit tests of activerecord leads me to think the db is completely responsible for auto-incrementing the id field and rails does no magic here. can someone confirm that this is a true statement? that being the case - what is the preferred way to write database agnostic sql for one''s schema since each of the dbs has slightly different syntax for this functionality... does

Hi, I am from a Java background and pretty new to Ruby and Rails. What I am wondering is how I would shared state accross requests and users without involving IO, i.e. use memory. My current understanding is that for each request a new process ist spawn and therefore it gets its own memory. So no sharing can take place between requests? Do I understand this right? For those who know

Hi, I''m trying to get the UserEngine running. I have installed the LoginEngine, added the essential lines to environment.rb / application.rb and application_helper.rb. Worked fine. Then I did the same with the UserEngine and when trying to set up the db: rake engine_migrate ENGINE=user I get: Migrating engine ''user_engine'' rake aborted! stack level too deep But...

I''ve used mysql for quite some time now. Other than crashing when the partition gets full, I''ve had no problems with it. But I''ve heard great things about postgres and have seen some people say it''s much superior to mysql. So, with a Rails application, is there any reason why I would want to learn/use another DB besides mysql? Any pragmatic benefits?

I''ve finally started a blog. I really didn''t want to go public with it until I was sure I keep it up, but DHH posted a entry to his blog that I feel compelled to comment on. You can read about it on my blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/CurtHibbs Curt

Howdy Folks, This release is after painstaking analysis of a memory leak that was reported by Bradley Taylor, reduced by myself, and then fixed after much work. You should all thank Bradley for finding the bizarre fix. It turns out the Ruby has a memory leak when you use pretty much any thread locking primitive other than Sync (Mutex, Monitor, etc.): http://pastie.caboo.se/10194 The fix (for

...n less than > 0.5 secs. Is this an unreasonable goal for the content I''m trying to > deliver? > -- > Bob Aman > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:49:15 -0700 (MST) > From: "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard-32lpuo7BZBA@public.gmane.org> > Subject: Re: [Rails] bug in postgresql ''now'' time handling?? > To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0503031957040.12047-G+JZiH4CBwMC9INiCSZi8+1ftBKYq+Ku@public.gmane.org> > Content-Type: T...

line 212 of postgresql_adapter.rb is return Time.now.to_s if value =~ /^\(''now''::text\)::(date|timestamp)/ i don''t think this will work. in postgresql the field ''now'' is pinned to the SAME TIME for the duration of a transaction. eg. if you do begin transaction; insert into t values(42, ''now''); # sleep one minute

considering that sqlite, mysql, postgresql, etc all handle times differently (well only postgresql really *handles* them) i''m wondering how to best approach time fields in rails. my current thinking is that sqlite is the least common denominator: it stores everything as text and does not checking, mysql has datetime, date, and timestamp but does poor checking (crippled to be precise) to

anyone? -a -- =============================================================================== | EMAIL :: Ara [dot] T [dot] Howard [at] noaa [dot] gov | PHONE :: 303.497.6469 | When you do something, you should burn yourself completely, like a good | bonfire, leaving no trace of yourself. --Shunryu Suzuki ===============================================================================

i''ve got a little rails app i''m messing with the schema is create table timedatevalidates ( id serial, timedatetovalidate timestamp, primary key (id) ); the mvc was initialized using rails scripts/generate scaffold timedatevalidate i''ve got this in a subdir of webroot and have modified .htaccess and config/routes.rb like so .htaccess :

i''ve been bashing my head against the screen for about two hours... for the life of me i could not figure out why connections to mysql were failing when view through browser but NOT from the command line as user apache... i confirmed that all connection parameters were correct and still no go. eventually i disabled selinux and all is well. there was a configuration section that claimed