Take a look at CouchDB instead of using a more traditional RDBMS. It sounds more like what you're after... I think....
http://couchdb.apache.org/ Geoffery's also done a peepcode thang about it here: https://peepcode.com/products/couchdb-with-rails Hope this is some help. Cam On 02/06/2009, at 9:25 AM, Sven Schott wrote: > Hi guys > > I'm about to start work on a project that's more than a little > ambitious (for me) and I wanted to get someone's opinion on some > ways to go about this. > Background: where I work, we tend to have a lot of 'one-use' data > like lists of users, directories, LDAP OUs and just about anything > else you can imagine. When we have to do some sort of processing of > this data (e.g. files than need to be renamed or machines that need > to be sorted and uniq'd), most people tend to create an excel > worksheet and manually enter all the data they require after which > they will pass the spreadsheet to someone else who will manually > then process the data in excel. I don't know if I'm the only one > that can see the irony in all this (maybe I just have a problem) but > to me this seems more than a little ridiculous. I use excel > sometimes but most of the time I see the concept as a little > outdated. I hate VBA and refuse to use it and without that excel to > me is the same product it was when it was written. I am not a > programmer but I use Ruby heavily for data processing and automation > and with Ruby and Textmate, I am always amazed at what I can do (as > well as the many Unix tools available). > I have written a few quickie rails projects purely for data > processing (it's cheap and easy) but there is obviously more > overhead than creating an excel spreadsheet (although in the long > run that hardly matters). So I would like to create a rails > application that will let me create quickie DBs (ala DabbleDB, > although not quite so extensive). I have a pretty good idea of how > to go about all the UI stuff (God bless the jQuery folk) but the > architecture of it is less than simple. I thought about having > individual tables for each DB (messy but quite workable) but having > a ActiveRecord controller for each one makes me shudder. Having > several hundred files (eventually) sitting in my rails app just says > wrong. I could ignore AR and do the queries directly or better yet > create a sort of metaclass that handles individual instances of DB's > without having multiple controllers. But this starts to get pretty > hairy. > > Does anyone have any ideas, suggestions, warnings, etc? Am I wishing > for the moon? > > Sven > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" 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/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
