Michael, I didn't mention the backward compatibility at all, that would've been a good point. Nor the bleeding of other libs into AR.
My points were mainly: - Composable datasets - Cleaner API - Virtual Rows (touched on briefly) - Performance (I've done a fair amount of benchmarking with Sequel and AR, and Sequel usually comes out on top both in terms of speed and memory footprint) - Thread safety - 0 open issues (vs. AR's massive numbers) - Jeremy's incredible support and open-mindedness - The ease of fitting Sequel into a Rails stack (this didn't go over well, obviously) We don't have legacy (non-Railsy) DBs to deal with -- otherwise I would have insisted on Sequel. The biggest hurdle to get over is the embedded ease-of-use with the Rails stack. Anytime you go "off the Rails" there's that fear that things might not work "as easily" today, or future Rails decisions may cause you a lot of hurt, etc. It's hard to break the RailsMindset. That said, getting Sequel to do everything that AR would do is a bit of extra work, but I think it's worth it. I also think it's worth the effort to question whether or not you ought to do things the way Rails' conventions encourage you to do. I'm not banging Rails, mind you. It's a great framework for what it accomplishes. There are definitely times when it makes sense to use it. I just don't think it's the panacea that a lot of Rubyists (seem to) make it out to be. Thankfully my team does not look at Rails as the hammer and all web-related issues/domains as nails. They are generally pretty open -- I just happened to lose this case. On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:42:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Lang wrote: > > Jason, > > What was your case for using Sequel? Just curious -- not asking you > to rehash the case with your team... > > For me, the chief benefit is API that remains backwards compatible > except in extreme and rare cases. This means the code survives major > and minor version releases and far lower maintenance problems > upgrading frameworks. > > Additional primary benefit is ability to hook into and model legacy > schemas that don't follow the Rails opinionated model very well. Far > less jumping through hoops and overcoming the "opinionated code" to > get things working, so resulting code is clean and straightforward > rather than having a hacked together feel. > > Secondary benefit is smaller code-base that is also faster (although I > haven't benchmarked AR vs. Sequel vs. DataMapper in quite some time). > > Fewer dependencies and entanglements with external libraries (like > Active Support, Active Resource, etc., which are themselves quite > large libraries). > > Finally, dropping down to SQL while remaining pure Ruby for doing > serious reporting queries is an awesome benefit if you have a lot of > different reports to produce. > > Michael > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Jason Rogers > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Thanks, Rohit. Unfortunately the team has decided to not use Sequel -- > it's > > just too foreign for them and they cannot grasp the benefits of the > switch > > from ActiveRecord. > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 4:43:46 PM UTC-5, rohit wrote: > >> > >> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:22:08 PM UTC-6, Jason Rogers wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Doug. I did make those configuration changes. I just wanted to > >>> hear if anyone ran into any issues. I'm glad to hear that you haven't. > Good > >>> news. > >> > >> > >> We are running Sequel + Rails 3.2.3 + JRuby. Not using sequel-rails > >> either. Getting devise + ldap authentication to work was not > >> straightforward. We had to patch the devise_sequel gem to get it to > work. > >> Apart from that no issues. > >> > >> Rohit > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "sequel-talk" group. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sequel-talk/-/Bf2671ad8o0J. > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en. > > > > -- > http://codeconnoisseur.org > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sequel-talk/-/bqiSeJKeoPcJ. 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/sequel-talk?hl=en.
