And let's not forget the most important reason to do this: this is on
the path to making Rails TRULY enterprisy! :-)
We're actually getting serious kickback from using Rails at one of our
clients because of this very problem. We've hacked around the issue
for now but client is still not happy. We
Nice. Now I get it.
I agree. Comet isn't going to get very far if it requires you to
completely change your design. Event driven is an interesting design
concept but there's just too many existing apps and too much existing
know-how out there for building web apps the way we do now. (Which is
inde
But that's just on the browser side of things which is relatively easy
to do (although you can't use XHR of course). The hard thing is
scaling things on the server side because of the
one-fastcgi-process-per-request problem and the fact that a "Comet
request" never ends.
On 4/22/06, Andrew Kaspick
Wow! This is really cool stuff.
But indeed not without problems. Problems that are solvable of course,
but it does change a lot of the current deployment model of Rails.
If I've understood Comet correctly the web browser opens an http
connection to the server and keeps it open. When something hap
On 3/2/06, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Jon Tirsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm working on the plugin for RBatis and a new little thing I'm toying
> > around with called ActiveMessaging (sorry, David I stole the name from
>
I'm working on the plugin for RBatis and a new little thing I'm toying
around with called ActiveMessaging (sorry, David I stole the name from
you from the TW AwayDay ;-)). Anyway, in both these applications I
want to be able to have reloadable classes that don't extend any of
the standard built in
Please remember that almost everyone that uses Oracle knows exactly
what "oci" is. Also, "oci" isn't quite the best way of integrating
with Oracle anymore (although it does certainly work!), so I would
suggest having a stub named "oracle" and keeping the "oci" one as it
is until someone gets around
On 2/27/06, Dave Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apart from being cool, what benefits to these changes bring to the
> _users_ of Rails?
So you're saying "cool" isn't a benefit in itself. ;-)
(But of course, I agree, if it's not backwards compatible it shouldn't be done.)
___
Include a backwards-compatability task library with the old names that
just delegates to the new modularized ones? Might be overkill if it's
not going to be a serious problem but it's relatively easy to do.
On 2/27/06, David Heinemeier Hansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Rake 0.7 allows for na
