On 22 Jan 2013, at 11:24, doug livesey <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that 'un-rails-like' is necessarily a bad thing, to be honest.
It depends on your "religion". If you think that the power of rapid Rails development is embodied by the mantra "convention over configuration", then you are losing a lot of that power when you stop following the conventions. If you spend a lot of time configuring things to get a Rails app working, you have to realise you're using Rails incorrectly. > Your pain points there sound rather like getting past the point of Rails > conventions and needing a new paradigm, which you've recognised. Maybe. I'm not sure that we need a new paradigm. An MVC framework written in Ruby with a persistent SQL storage back-end with Models taking on some sort of ORM responsibility is what Rails is brilliant at, and that's what I think we need here. It's possible we could look at other options - I scratch my chin thinking about node.js a lot at the moment as we're heavily event-driven as an architecture - but I am not convinced we need to involve new paradigms here out of necessity. > One thing I like about the hexagonal Rails approach that Matt Wynne has been > going on about is that its a way of thinking about a much more modularised > way of developing (and testing) rails apps. It's not SOA, but SOA leads > pretty easily and naturally from it. Hexagonal is something I am intrigued with, the pattern looks like it might help us a little in some areas, but I have not tried implementing anything with the pattern so not sure if it'll suit us. Anybody here got direct experience of it and the pain points/successes it brings to the party? > And it really nicely controls your dependencies (and makes you think about > and control your dependencies, rather than let Rails include everything, > which is *huge*!). Got any good write-ups anywhere on Rails implementations of hexagonal that demonstrates that? > The only thing missing there, potentially, is a meta-integration test, where > maybe you want to test the whole, distributed stack, with real or staging > instances? I've not got to the point of needing to do that, yet, but I > imagine that cucumber could do that pretty easily. I'd argue that testing the whole stack is the most important test of all. :-) > But before you distribute everything to its own app, the Hexagonal Rails > approach would give you cleanly defined modules that could then much more > easily be evolved out into separate services as the need arose. I'll dive into that approach in more detail and maybe try refactoring a few components and see what it buys us. Thanks, Paul -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" 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/nwrug-members?hl=en.
