From: "Stephan J. Schmidt" <stephan.schmidt@...>
Date: 2002-01-02T17:01:56+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:30030] Re: Announcing Ruby.APP

> > The most important design goal is *ease of use*. Ruby.APP will provide
> > the easiest way for building web applications (from my point of view
> > :-)
> 
> echo "Write our web application, or you're fired!" | mail -s "Oi"
> employee@mycompany.com ;)

:-)

> 
> A lot of systems are already running webservers - does it not make sense
> to intergrate with them?  Especially when you're going to be serving
> images, css etc.
> 

You can use apache for static pages, css, images, etc. But a standalone
server enables you to handle a lot of dynamic things much nicer than a
addon. An a standalone server enables you to write "desktop"
applications. See Alcea FastBugTrack, a standalone java bug tracker.
Very easy to use, very easy to install (the easiest web application I 
saw until now)

> 
> Not at the cost of performance, I hope, <grumbles about the last third
> party CMS he tried which called 80 SELECTS on the front page>
> 

Performance depends. When you compare it to highly optimized joins over
several tables, then the performance of the object store will be worse.
Usually for retrieving all the parent and all members of a 1-n
relationship, you will get 2 db hits. For 10 parents you will get 1
(parents) + 10 (every child) = 11 hits instead of one (optimized one).
But looking at .NET, OpenSymphony and Java EJB caching, caching can
make that a minor problem.

> > - Integration with IDE GUI builders and UML: The component based
> > approach makes the development of GUI builders and the design with UML
> > tools easy.
> 
> So long as it works with vim I'm happy ;)

vim.users.add(self)

> 
> > - Ruby.APP is free and open source (LGPL, BSD or Apache, I'm not sure)
> 
> BSD is the best choice if you want to be free, GPL's more if you're into
> the evil FSF agenda :)

No, I'm no FSF zealot any more ;-) 

bye
-stephan