hi, Julian, I am not good at English, that's why I rarely post. sorry for that[?]
my opinion is: abandon merb and concentrate on DM, since resources are always lack and they should be used more effective. On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]>wrote: > Hey man, > > Feel free to use what you want, and don't use what you don't want. Whole > frameworks included. Some people like Merb, others Sinatra, others Rails, > (some even prefer PHP which is odd to me, but they do). Others like Camping > or even Smalltalk on Seaside (smalltalk is brillo). > > I have a bit of a problem with your (human) language... > > Your point about datamapper is a *little* unfounded. ARel wrappers > ActiveRecord in an abstraction layer in a similar method to Datamapper's > mapping of any arbitrary store... in that... so long as one implements the > core api of ARel, it can wrap anything... why not datamapper for example > (more than part of the original intention I think). The point of Rails 3 is > pretty much that you can use whatever you like... Write a whole app in metal > if you like... shim a layer just over Rack... I'm not entirely sure how it's > less flexible than Merb at the moment. Happy to be educated on that. > > It's *really* hard to understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're > not using English in a very normal way. You could be saying several > different (even opposing) things. If you could be more precise, I'd be able > to understand you a bit better. > > Julian. > > On 25/05/2010, at 3:24 PM, 刘松 wrote: > > since rails3 is coming, and most merb features are copied to rails3, so I > do think merb is dead. > If merb keeps live and active, I may think it's just a experimental field, > to play around and push more things to rails later. > is there any reason to use merb instead of rails3 for a new project? > I do think NO. > > It's a one choice between: > 1. *invent* a new project(merb) to try the best solution. > 2. *push* the existing project(rails) to be the best solution. > > merb chose 1 before, and when it was merged with rails, it chose 2, and for > now is there any reason to change back to 1? > I do think the answer is NO. > > the most difficulty of choice 2 is "push", right? so, "PUSH" hard please, > and the key is "SHOW" :) > very appreciate to your effort, especially to yehuda. > > DM is another thing that is quite advanced than AR, and DM adapters/plugins > is a great fortune. > It's a pity that recent 1-2 year few people and resources are using/working > on DM(though Dan did a lot), and I can't believe DM1.0 will be released with > full features that was in 1.0 roadmap on railsconf. > AR is catching up quickly, and is there any reason to embrace DM for a AR > user? > I do think YES. > > DM gives benefit on: > 1. adapters for even non-relational DBMS. > 2. types declaration is good. > and its architecture is still clean than AR > > my suggestion is: move resources/concern from merb to DM, and make DM the > first choice for ruby. > It needs lots of work on: > 1. tools/guidelines/support that helps migrate from AR, especially load > field information from DB. > 2. maturity, like > 2.1 true `before_save` hook with controlled execution order instead of > Object#before. > 2.2 SQL generation > 2.3 dependency cleanup, like activesupport integration, reload on dev > mode. > 3. more features that exists in AR, like Model.order(:field.desc) > 4. clean up dm-core, dm-more and the fortune of adapters > 5. call up people to participate > ... > > DM has more bright feature if AR keeps following MartinFowler's > ActiveRecord pattern. It just has no much resources. > I really appreciate their maintainers and contributors, it's your honor. > > I bet on DM. > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Nicholas Orr <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You probably can do that, the point was, Merb *works* as is, its stable, >> != dead :) >> >> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Patrick Aljord <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Nicholas Orr <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Merb is alive, it works... >>>> Its not like it is in a proof of concept stage, you can go DM+Merb and >>>> have a functioning app >>>> >>> >>> What's the advantage over using rail-core+DM from rails3? I can >>> understand using merb for legacy apps that work just fine, but for new ones? >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "merb" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected] <merb%[email protected]>. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "merb" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <merb%[email protected]>. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "merb" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "merb" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <merb%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en.
<<330.gif>>
