Rahil, Although getting Rails compatability is a nice test case, I would say that complete Ruby coverage would be a better goal for 1.0, because that would theorectically mean that Rails or Merb or whatever would be able to be run.
One of the problems of targetting Merb at this point would be the fact that it is a moving target - it's API is changing on an almost daily basis, as well as the fact that is relies heavily on Mongrel. I don't really see a huge andantage in porting Mongrel initially, as IIS would be a logical web server to target - not to say that it couldn't be done, there is just more important things at the moment. >From the ORM point of view, for ActiveRecord (as well as AKAIF datamapper/Sequel) the essential part for the IronRuby port would be a MSQL driver and/or an ODBC driver/libraries. In fact, all of the database drivers will probably need to be ported, (The pure Ruby MySQL driver is dog slow). ---------------------------------------------- Myles Eftos Mobile: +61-409-293-183 MadPilot Productions URL: http://www.madpilot.com.au Phone: +618-9467-7651 Fax: +618-9467-6289 Try our time tracking system: 88 Miles! http://www.88miles.net > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Rahil Kantharia > Sent: Monday, 10 March 2008 13:40 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Merb as a Milestone,rather than > Rails for IronRuby 1.0 > > Hi, > > Its no secret that IronRuby shall Run Rails to prove a total > implementation for declaring IronRuby 1.0 > > Its a great going by IronRuby team, and i can see work > progressing in this direction. > > But things have changed a lot recently... > > " Merb" a new framework for Ruby, has taken a right step in > the direction of creating a perfect MVC, with Rails as an > inspiration, but removing few drawbacks of Rails as well. > > It has added many outstanding features, which are worth considering. > Merb can now work with any 3 of ORM's ( Active Record, DataMapper and > Sequel) rather than Active Record as an only ORM offered by Rails. > > Now...On the other hand DataMapper is also considered a > strong competitor to Active Record as it has added few > advantages over Active Record > > So.... Merb, rather than limiting itself to one ORM is > offering much more than Rails. > > I think... IronRuby team should consider this option too, and > change their milestone from Rails to Merb, after seeking many > suggestions on this forum. > > PLUS.... LINQ to SQL also cannot be neglected at this stage, > and it should be considered as well, not forgetting SubSonic. > > So its possible that IronRuby can easily support atleast 5 > ORM's at this stage, in their first version. > > This are just my views, correct me if i am wrong. > > Cheers > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
