adding an entire language with bells and whistles would complicate your install package immensely. given your reqs I'd just plan to run the whole thing in the browser and move it to .js and maybe a filedb.
On Mar 4, 2:46 pm, Zonker <[email protected]> wrote: > I am consulting on a software project which is database intensive and > the interface is web-based. Users can download an installation package > which, if necessary, installs Microsoft IIS, some free Microsoft > database server (I think it's a stripped-down version of MS-SQL) and > then the HTML, ASP, and JavaScript-based app. It only runs on Windows > machines and only works in IE. Oh, and it needed certain tweaks or > patches to make it work under Vista; the version which worked under XP > didn't work 100% in Vista. > > As one who appreciates standards and not being tied to one technology, > especially browsers, and having seen the database design and the > actual app in action, plus lots of insight into how difficult it is to > maintain, upgrade, etc., my immediate thought was: it must be possible > to do it better by adhering to web standards as much as possible > (rather than as little as possible), break the dependence on MS > products, etc. > > I'm a huge fan of RoR but still relatively new to it, but based on my > readings (Agile Web Dev for Rails) and investigations, I thought that > this app would be perfect for RoR. > > But, before I suggest making a switch which will take lots of time and > cost lots of money, I need to know how easy it would be for anyone to > take a basic office computer with just XP or Vista (or Mac!) and > install all that is necessary: a web server, a database, Ruby and > Rails, and the app itself? > > What would need to happen is: > > 1. User downloads my-app-install.zip > 2. User unzips download > 3. User runs install-my-app.bat or something like that. > 4. User opens any browser and enters: my-app.local (or whatever) and > the app starts. > > Is there a way to do this with a RoR solution? > > Note: This web-based app would only be run locally, not as a general > website available to all. > > I'd be really interested if anyone has done something like this or if > anyone has some thoughts on the matter. > > If I'm not being clear, please let me know - I'll try to rephrase. > > Regards, > Zonker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
