As more RoR code snippets, examples, even whole site templates become available, I ask, "Are we missing the boat?"
Well, we missed the PHP boat as well. The main reason I wrote Active4D was because I could not use PHP. In some ways I would like to think Active4D is better. ;-)
I do wonder if having an RoR enabled A4D, along with the promised SQL engine in 4D 2007, would allow for more access to available code libraries, or not as now with Cold Fusion Fusebox code?
If the SQL engine in 4D 2007 is accessible through RoR (which would require both an API on the 4D side and an interface library on the ruby side), in a way you would be crazy not to give it a try. I'm sure I will if I think it is a better fit for my client's needs.
I do NOT know how challenging it would be for A4D to implement RoR.
That can't happen. RoR is built on ruby. It's a different language, different infrastructure, etc.
I'm asking, mainly Aparajita; this spring when Leopard comes out with RoR included, when 4D 2007 comes out with a built in SQL engine, will Fusebox still be our best choice?
Active4D+fusebox will be your best choice if you have to stay with the legacy 4D database and you don't want to learn a new language. If these restrictions do not apply, the best choice is whatever works best for you or your client.
Regards, Aparajita www.aparajitaworld.com "If you dare to fail, you are bound to succeed." - Sri Chinmoy | www.srichinmoylibrary.com _______________________________________________ Active4D-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.aparajitaworld.com/mailman/listinfo/active4d-dev Archives: http://mailman.aparajitaworld.com/archive/active4d-dev/
