From: Bryan Murphy <bryan@...>
Date: 2002-01-24T02:13:44+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby Publishing Framework v0.5.0

Yohanes Santoso wrote:

>Being lazy, may I ask how does RPF compares to Apache Cocoon 2 or
>Apache Forest (still not an official project, I think) in terms of
>complexity and functionality?
>

That's a perfectly valid reason!  The whole reason I created this 
project in the first place is because I'm lazy and want to get as much 
done as possible with as little work (over the long haul, not in the 
short term). :)

Anyway, there are some differences since this is a Ruby project, but I'm 
trying to keep as close to the Cocoon2 ideas as possible (for now 
anyway) and am definitely working towards making the sitemaps as similar 
as possible.

Right now, Generators, Transformers, Serializers, Actions, Selectors, 
and a default regex Matcher more or less work.  Selectors and Actions 
are not quite as clean as they will be, but they get the job done at 
this point.  I have a File Generator, an ERuby generator (like the 
JSPGenerator for Cocoon but using ERuby), an XSLT transformer, and HTML 
and XML serializers already up and running.

Logic sheets, XSP files, caching, views, multiple pipelines, and action 
sets are missing.  Some will go in over time (action sets, XSP, 
logicsheets, caching), some may be unneccessary depending on how other 
parts of the project and my ideas flesh out over time (views, multiple 
pipelines).

My priority right now is basic documentation.  After that I'll probably 
clean up selectors and actions a bit, fix any important bugs and then 
start working on an XSP implementation.  I also want to build in some 
basic logic sheets and/or transformers that do some usefull stuff (like 
XInclude).  Ruby being what it is, I expect documentation to be the 
hardest and most time consuming part ;)

That's functionality... as for complexity, I guess that's more a matter 
of opinion.  Some things aren't there and probably won't be in for a 
long time if ever (unless somebody else contributes them) such as built 
in support for doing SOAP, SVG, PDF and the like.  I need to focus on 
the core framework before I worry about the extras.  Don't take that the 
wrong way though, I would love to see something like SOAP4R integrated 
into the project at some point.

Now, you can put ruby, the framework, and all the modules needed to run 
the framework on a single floppy.  That's nice.  The overhead of Java is 
absolutely GONE, which is saving a LOT of wear and tear on our server 
already (my old links application was written in Cocoon2, hardly ever 
used, and the JVM still sucked up half the machines resources).  I'm 
pleasantly surprised with the performance so far.  I don't think my 
application has taken much of a performance hit from the move, although 
I've made no means to exactly quantify the speed differences.   I do 
know one thing for sure, building the Ruby version is a hell of a lot 
easier than building the Java version was.  No more compiling, no more 
restarting Tomcat and fighting with that.  No more clearing out temp 
directories, and restarting Apache takes 5 seconds.

So, I can't really answer the complexity question.  I do think at this 
point the framework is geared more towards building larger 
applications... but when I get the basic logic sheets and XSP completed 
building small simple applications will hopefully be easy and stupid 
quick.  Regardless, I think it's a LOT easier to get up and running and 
use than the Java version.

>I feel that the Apache's stuffs are complete, but way to overkill for
>small sites.
>
Yes, I absolutely agree with that, which is part of the reason for 
creating the Ruby framework.  Some of the ideas behind Cocoon are very 
powerfull, but all the Java stuff and the compile/deploy cycle is a pain 
in the ass for web development.

I guess it's like the difference between building an MFC application and 
a Visual Basic application.  One is quick and easy, one is more 
powerfull and flexible and gives you a better program in the long run 
(well, at least for Microsoft based products ;).  If I can bring some of 
that flexibility and power to the Ruby world, and make things easier at 
the same time, well if nobody else uses it at least MY web applications 
will be better off!

Bryan