On Nov 26, 2007 3:05 PM, Bob Br <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Otherwise what would you suggest for sessions? Go with database as a well-rounded default. Switch to memcached if database becomes the bottleneck.
> but read on the forum that it won't store activerecord info, and I am > currently putting some AR stuff in there. Not sure if I read it right, but if the above means "serialized model instances in the session", you shouldn't do that. Sessions should hold IDs. > connected to a MS SQL database using the ODBC connection. Duh... not that SQLServer is a bad product... but Rails community basically doesn't care too much about it. I wonder if you have to solve some crappy little problems because of that. Definitely was my experience with the Rails+SQLServer combo a year ago, and Rails+Oracle just recently. -- Alexey Verkhovsky CruiseControl.rb [http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com] RubyWorks [http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.com] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-deployment@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
