Raf Jaf wrote: > > >> JMS: not sure. Mainframes: sure, if they expose the proper interface. > > I am interested in native support. Of course it's possible to integrate > Ruby with a mainframe if the mainframe exposed a http endpoint; this is > beyond obvious.
And what would a native interface be in this case? "Mainframes" can run lots of different DB servers. > >> In this case, you are wrong. Rails is a full-stack framework. If >> you're not going to use most of the stack, there is no point in >> incurring the extra overhead of using it in your project. > > No such thing as right and wrong; the world is grey. Of course there are such things as right and wrong. And that's even more true where it concerns proper development practice than abstract philosophy. If you disagree with the advice you're getting, that's fine. If you're claiming that there is no right or wrong...well...then I don't want to be the one maintaining your codebase. :) Development and architecture are all about value judgements -- deciding what the right way to do things is for a particular set of conditions. And with that, let's leave philosophy and return to software development. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org [email protected] -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- 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.
