From: Peter Booth Date: 2008-11-17T05:01:03+09:00 Subject: Re: web framework for Ruby 1.9 I'm just curious, why would you use 1.9 if JRuby has rails support? The support tools, native threads and performance would seem compelling (I'm still on 1.8.6). Sent from my iPhone On Nov 15, 2008, at 3:36 PM, "Jeremy Kemper" wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Stefan Lang > wrote: >> I'm looking for a web framework that: >> >> 1) really works with Ruby 1.9 >> >> 2) pure Ruby code (i.e. doesn't depend on C-extensions, Java >> libraries...) >> >> 3) has an active community >> >> bonus points: >> >> 4) doesn't follow the "let's extend core classes whenever possible" >> craze >> >> 5) good postgres support >> >> Does such a framework exist or am I asking for too much? > > Rails satisfies all 5 for me, but you may find Active Support adds too > much for your taste. > >> Actually I would use Rails, the latest RC is advertised as Ruby 1.9 >> compatible but I've immediately hit a couple of errors and I >> don't have the time ATM to fix compatibility errors in such a big >> codebase and push the changes upstream. What's more, the pure >> Ruby postgres driver doesn't work anymore. > > What'd you run into? The only outstanding compatibility issue I have > is with the test/unit -> minitest change. > > Rails has been chasing 1.9 compatibility like a drowning man gulps for > air. Luckily the recent feature freeze means we're close to having dry > land underfoot. > > The latest postgres-pr works, btw. The earlier driver was missing the > #transaction_status method. > >> >> Merb fails with syntax errors with Ruby 1.9. >> >> Thanks, >> Stefan >> >> > > Best, > jeremy >