On Dec 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Shawn Church wrote:
Since you have some experience with older/legacy databases, how would
Ruby/RoR stack up against Java/Tapestry in regard to legacy databases
and multiple databases? Ruby and RoR in particular is appealing,
but my
applications must reliably support DB2/400 in addition to MySQL (and
sometimes others). The RoR wiki on DB2 (not to mention the additional
idiosynchrosies of DB2/400) basically says it doesn't work. Many
of my
internal applications would otherwise be well-suited to RoR, but I
can't
live without fast and reliable DB2 database support with legacy/broken
schemas (composite keys, sometimes no primary key, etc.) and reliable
connection pooling. Java/Tapestry/Hibernate always works, but I would
love to throw RoR into the mix.
Sam Ruby has been doing work on the DB2 stuff (I just happen to tune
into his blog):
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2005/12/12/DB2-interface-for-Ruby-
progress
MySQL works well with ActiveRecord.
How well ActiveRecord works with legacy schemas is unclear. I hear
of frustrations with it, but it is quite adaptable as well, so it may
just be a matter of fiddling with the configuration (which is in Ruby
code!) to get tables/columns mapped properly, and it looks like DB2
will be supported nicely soon. IBM has a vested interest of course!
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
