On Jun 12, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote: > I have to chime in here and plead for you to leave the database.yml > alone. Or if you must use ruby config, please leave the db.yml > working. If the credentials/config is only in ruby and in the local > variable format you showed earlier, then other tools from other > languages are going to not be able to read this stuff in easily. Heck > in that format even ruby cannot read the credentials in without > loading rails and using eval hackery to make the local variables > available outside of the file they are in. >
*The patch leaves database.yml alone.* If no database configuration is done in the environment, Rails still looks in database.yml. > I see significant downsides to the pure ruby config: It seems there are a lot of deployment-time concerns here. Would it help if there was a Rake task to dump database.yml for a given environment? > I thought rails was all about not breaking backwards compatibility > unless there is a very good reason? What is the very good reason to > make deployment more difficult? What does this gain us must be weighed > against what we lose with the ruby config. What part of deploying a typical Rails app is made more difficult? If anything, I'd think the external credential file makes things easier than it was before. -- ~akk http://therealadam.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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
