Rails with no direct database access?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rails with no direct database access?

Jason DiCioccio-2
Hello all,
  I'm having a bit of an internal conflict here.  I have a web
application that I need to write (for myself).  Fine, right?  Well,
this site is for a DNS service that has a client interface for client
APIs to access.  I'd like to have all application requests and data
updates/retrieval to go through this interface instead of a database.
Should I even use Rails for something like this?  Or is using Rails
for something without an RDMS not worth it?  Is replacing or
subclassing ActiveRecord (which I heard is what I'd be doing) very
time consuming?  Worth it?  I'd like to use Rails, but if this
architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other
ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend?

Thanks in advance!
Jason DiCioccio
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rails with no direct database access?

Frederic Jean
I wrote a small (internal) application that retrieved data in XML
format from another application. I had no database involved. Even
then, Ruby and Rails were a good fit for this nice little hack. The
method_missing method is your friend here.

Fred

On 12/17/05, Jason DiCioccio <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello all,
>   I'm having a bit of an internal conflict here.  I have a web
> application that I need to write (for myself).  Fine, right?  Well,
> this site is for a DNS service that has a client interface for client
> APIs to access.  I'd like to have all application requests and data
> updates/retrieval to go through this interface instead of a database.
> Should I even use Rails for something like this?  Or is using Rails
> for something without an RDMS not worth it?  Is replacing or
> subclassing ActiveRecord (which I heard is what I'd be doing) very
> time consuming?  Worth it?  I'd like to use Rails, but if this
> architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other
> ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Jason DiCioccio
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>


--
Frederic Jean
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rails with no direct database access?

Jason Edgecombe
In reply to this post by Jason DiCioccio-2
Jason DiCioccio wrote:

>Hello all,
>  I'm having a bit of an internal conflict here.  I have a web
>application that I need to write (for myself).  Fine, right?  Well,
>this site is for a DNS service that has a client interface for client
>APIs to access.  I'd like to have all application requests and data
>updates/retrieval to go through this interface instead of a database.
>Should I even use Rails for something like this?  Or is using Rails
>for something without an RDMS not worth it?  Is replacing or
>subclassing ActiveRecord (which I heard is what I'd be doing) very
>time consuming?  Worth it?  I'd like to use Rails, but if this
>architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other
>ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend?
>  
>

Why not subclass activerecord or make a custom database connector? That
way you get ActiveRecord/Rails goodness while still using the custom API
that you want.

I'm a rails newbie, but I suspect that subclassing ActiveRecord may be
the better approach. What say the rails gurus?

Besides, if you wrap your custom api in an existing Rails API,then you
can reuse it in another app or switch your data store without much fuss.
Abstraction is a good thing.

Sincerely,
Jason
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rails with no direct database access?

Ezra Zygmuntowicz-2
In reply to this post by Jason DiCioccio-2

On Dec 17, 2005, at 12:18 AM, Jason DiCioccio wrote:

> Hello all,
>   I'm having a bit of an internal conflict here.  I have a web
> application that I need to write (for myself).  Fine, right?  Well,
> this site is for a DNS service that has a client interface for client
> APIs to access.  I'd like to have all application requests and data
> updates/retrieval to go through this interface instead of a database.
> Should I even use Rails for something like this?  Or is using Rails
> for something without an RDMS not worth it?  Is replacing or
> subclassing ActiveRecord (which I heard is what I'd be doing) very
> time consuming?  Worth it?  I'd like to use Rails, but if this
> architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other
> ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Jason DiCioccio
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

        I think you will find that rails is perfect for this sort of thing.  
Rails does not force you to use ActiveRecord. So you can make your  
models howerver you want and still get to use rails controllers/views  
and routing. I don't think you will want to subclass activerecord  
though. just write your own custom model classes.


Cheers-
-Ezra Zygmuntowicz
Yakima Herald-Republic
WebMaster
http://yakimaherald.com
509-577-7732
[hidden email]



_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails