On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Where the raw SQL approach scores is in the read operations, which are
> incredibly simple, easy-to-understand queries. In Potlatch these are
> whichways and getway, in the XML API it'd be the /map call. The disadvantage
> of using Rails
Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Is there another source explaining the architecture of the Rails port?
> Preferably with a
> diagram or such.
>
Hardware wise...
1x Database Server (MySQL)
3x Dedicated Rails Application Servers (Ruby 1.8.6, Rails 2.0.x)
1x Frontend Web Server (lighttpd
Matt Amos wrote:
> in the case of quadtile, i think the extra complexity was
> worthwhile. in the case of SQL in the amf_controller, i'm not
> so sure. this is just my opinion.
Sure. We can even do more nuanced than that, if you like. :)
In my opinion - and again, just that - the clarity of Ra
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> in which case we're trading development effort for performance.
>> i think we're operating in areas constrained by the lack of
>> available developers, so making the barrier to entry higher is a
>> tough decision.
>
>
Matt Amos wrote:
> in which case we're trading development effort for performance.
> i think we're operating in areas constrained by the lack of
> available developers, so making the barrier to entry higher is a
> tough decision.
(Speaking seriously for once...)
Kind of, but it's not a simple
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>>
>> what do you see as the benefits of an old-fashioned compiled language
>> (presumably you mean C/C++/Java) over just plain ruby? just because
>> we're using ruby doesn't mean we have to use rails+activerecord :-)
>
> I t
Op 13 jan 2009, om 13:17 heeft Frederik Ramm het volgende geschreven:
> Martijn,
>
>> The goal of the talk will be to interest the (Amsterdam) Ruby
>> community in OSM in general, but also in becoming involved in OSM
>> Rails development. Is that helpful?
>
> My personal take on this is that
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> just because we're using ruby doesn't mean we have to use
>> rails+activerecord :-)
>
> You mean I can put all the SQL back in amf_controller and get it running at
> a reasonable speed again? ;)
not yet :-)
if, in th
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
> what do you see as the benefits of an old-fashioned compiled language
> (presumably you mean C/C++/Java) over just plain ruby? just because
> we're using ruby doesn't mean we have to use rails+activerecord :-)
I think nothing beats C/C++ (not so sure about Java) when it com
Matt Amos wrote:
> just because we're using ruby doesn't mean we have to use
> rails+activerecord :-)
You mean I can put all the SQL back in amf_controller and get it running at
a reasonable speed again? ;)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Ruby-developers-
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> One is talking to users - letting them register, write blogs, write
> messages (and if the trend continues, one day they'll be able to upload
> images, have multi-page user profiles and forums and a full-blown E-Mail
> system all within OSM)
Martijn,
> The goal of the talk will be to interest the (Amsterdam) Ruby
> community in OSM in general, but also in becoming involved in OSM
> Rails development. Is that helpful?
My personal take on this is that we actually have two, very different,
kinds of "web interface", or better "http
Hi dev,
I've been given the opportunity to give a talk during a gathering of
Ruby developers in Amsterdam[1] next month.
I want to present them with a general high level introduction of OSM
and then make the link to Ruby by explaining a bit about the Rails
part of the OSM infrastructure.
Pro
13 matches
Mail list logo
