[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: eRuby: A tutorial on using Ruby on the web

Greg Donald

7/26/2006 3:16:00 PM

On 7/26/06, tesla <tesla.nicoli@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.hiveminds.co.uk...

A bit of FUD in there about Rails:

> Rails also has many drawbacks in that it removes almost all of the portability
> of Ruby"

How so? Ruby runs everywhere so Rails pretty much can too.

> Deploying a Rails application is complicated, time consuming task and just not
> something that you will want to do on a repetative basis

Here is your deployment tool:

http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/...

> Rails also is a lot of work if you just want to do a single webpage application
> that contains everything.

Everything like what? I have found everything I need up to now. I've
even ripped out portions of my own code when I would find there is a
Ruby gem that provides what I need.

> Web hosting companies are also a large factor in using Rails. To do Rails
> properly you need to have ssh knowledge and be prepared to do some
> command line manipulation of files. The needs of Rails makes a shared
> hosting environment difficult to set up and administrate.

There are many hosting companies that are embracing Rails with open
arms. Here are your current options:

http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/Rai...

I use OCSSolutions.com. They have a nice setup, very smart folks
working there and very responsive service.

As far as using SSH, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want that. Clear
text FTP passwords are bad and most GUI FTP clients support SFTP at
this point.

> One of the biggest Rails drawback for me and the reason that I decided to go with
> eRuby is the that Rails was taking up all my time with Rails problems and
> troubleshooting. I was learning a lot about using Rails but not much of the
> Ruby programming language.

You might want to pick up a copy of Ruby for Rails:
http://www.manning....

To effectively use a framework you should probably know the language
it's built with, that's gonna be true for any web framework, not just
Rails.


--
Greg Donald
http://des...
3 Answers

Greg Donald

7/26/2006 5:45:00 PM

0

On 7/26/06, tesla <tesla.nicoli@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rails on my PC has differences from what is in my web host and so the
> application will not run without me tweaking it. We deployed a test app to
> Dreamhost, Bluehost and HostPC. Of the three Bluehost worked without
> problems but still required some changes. The other instances just did not
> run.

That's why there are different environment files in
config/environments. You can customize your setup based on the
environment.

> The problem is that they all hosters seem to have unseen differences that
> clog the process. Each of the three we tried seem to have different versions
> and packages of Ruby running.

That's how it is everywhere. One of my client's setups will be
running PHP 4.4.x while another will be running PHP 5, one has MySQL
3.23 and another has 5 already. As a developer I assume it's up to me
to write code for the production environment. I then try to duplicate
that exact production environment locally if possible. With apps like
VMWare and Parallels and FreeBSD jails, it is quite simple.

> Apache was a problem. We run Apache 2 which
> did not seem to be a problem a first but when things stopped working
> everyone started pointing to the Apache servers first.

My setup uses Apache 2 proxying requests to a Lighttpd instance. I
never have to mess with Apache when troubleshooting my Rails apps, I
just do the fix and restart my Lighttpd instance, since it runs as my
user, not Apache's user.

> Rails was just not
> generic enough for us.

I'm sure it can handle a 15 minute guestbook app. :)

> SSH seemed to be needed to troubleshoot. Each time we contacted a support
> desk we were asked to telnet into the server and do configuration changes.

Interesting that you would choose a host that still allows telnet,
very insecure.

> Exactly our point. Since the end result should be a Ruby teaching
> situation we found that Rails got in the way. Also students would need
> two books (budgets you know) rather than one ;)

Well.. when the docs aren't all that great and the Rails developers
mostly write books instead of improving the online docs, what's a
developer to do? Buy the books. *shrug*

I feal your pain on this one. I have 8+ years doing PHP and MySQL
apps and have never had to buy a single book. Meanwhile I have
slightly more than a year doing Rails apps and have 5 Ruby/Rails
related books, not counting ebooks.

> Also I truly dislike that acronym FUD. It is thrown about too often when
> people are giving their experiences, outlook and opinion. None or us fear
> Rails, are uncertain about its purpose nor doubt that its capabilities. We
> just decided based on our own conferencing and experimentation not to go
> with Rails this time and we gave our reasons why.

Ruby and Rails and command lines and sysadmin tasks aren't for
everyone. Good luck.


--
Greg Donald
http://des...

Mat Schaffer

7/26/2006 9:18:00 PM

0


On Jul 26, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Greg Donald wrote:
> To effectively use a framework you should probably know the language
> it's built with, that's gonna be true for any web framework, not just
> Rails.

But isn't is also possible that someone doesn't want to learn a
framework? I'm not one for FUD and I love rails, but I see no reason
there shouldn't be tutorials for doing it both ways.
-Mat

Rimantas Liubertas

7/26/2006 9:32:00 PM

0

<...>
> > Here is your deployment tool:
> >
> > http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/...

> We used switchtower.
<...>

Swichtower was renamed to Capistrano.



Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rim...