For what it's worth, I fully agree with Scott. I'd prefer to stick to one default database. Sqlite is really easy to install on windows (easier than MySQL) and generating a MySQL based rails app, really isn't that hard.
My suggestion: let's stick to sqlite for a little while, if that's really a problem we can always re evaluate the situation later on. -Matt On Dec 20, 12:24 pm, "Scott Bronson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/20/07, Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was pulled from core in > > 2.0, I don't think it would be good to make it the default in any > > scenario > > Agree 100%. > > Of all of the open-source databases that Rails supports out > > > of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least have heard of MySQL and > > a little googling finds wide acceptance among big-name companies. I > > think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all. > > One way of fixing the popularity problem is to use just sqlite in the > default install. A lot of Windows developers could well discover that > sqlite is easier to use (no need to monkey with admin interfaces and > permissions; rake db:create just works) and every bit as good for their > needs as mysql. Personally, I use sqlite for development and mysql for > production. It's a great setup. I'm surprised I didn't try sqlite until > Rails 2.0 suggested it. > > The scenario I'm trying to solve is this: > > > > > 1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step of trying out Rails. > > 2. She picks up any Rails book on the market, finds out she needs to > > install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer, and does a gem install > > rails > > 3. She types "rails hello_world" and creates one model > > 4. Big Problems > > Every book I've seen starts with setting up database.yaml. You omit that > step and then worry that the user's app won't work. Well, if you omit that > step with Rails 1.2, your app will have Big Problems too! (I think you're > overstating your case a wee bit). > > There will also be Big Problems when the user tries to use pagination or > list examples... or the functional test examples shown in the book... etc. > I don't think anybody expects a book on Rails 1.0 is going to be fully > compatible with Rails 2.0. > > Perhaps I should change the --help text to read, "Default: sqlite3 (or > > > MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ? That would be fine with me. > > That's still arbitrarily modifying the defaults isn't it? Seems to me like > this will cause more trouble than it solves. > > I really don't think Windows users are as clueless as you make them out to > be. The majority of them anyway. ;) > > - Scott --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
