Hypothetical question (at the moment!)
Suppose I have a great idea for an application. It acts on data which can be well-represented by tables in a relational database, using interlinked objects which represent those tables. It supports a well-defined API for interacting with (Creating, Reading, Updating, Deleting) those objects, and viewing information about them.
In short, it's a perfect fit for Rails... except it doesn't want to be a web-app. Perhaps it wants a Command Line interface; or an OS-native dialog-based interface; or perhaps it wants to present itself as a resource to other apps. Whatever - it just isn't designed to present itself over HTTP.
These questions suggest it's certainly possible, but both approach the problem from the point of view of adapting an existing web-app to have an additional, non-web, interface.
I'm interested in knowing what the best way to create such an app would be. Would you be best to rails new non_web_app, in order to get the skeleton built "for free", then write some "normal" Ruby code that requires config/environment - but then you have a lot of web-centric cruft that you don't need? Or would it be better to roll up your sleeves and build it from whole cloth, taking just the libraries you need and manually writing any required configuration?
If the latter, what exactly is needed to make a Rails app, but without the web bits?
If you want to access the Rails ORM to develop a CRUD non-web application, just include ActiveRecord in your own Ruby script; you will avoid using a lot of Rails modules you probably don't need (routing, template generator, ...) Here is an example of how to do it.
If you prefer to have the full Rails stack, do not run your Rails web app in an application server (WEBrick, Passenger, Mongrel, ...) to avoid any HTTP exposure, and interact with your application using tasks or the rails console.
I would avoid taking Rails too far off the rails. If I were doing this and felt that the gains of rails w/o the web stuff I'd do the following:
rails new non_web_app
and ignore the webbish cruft and use rails to generate models. In this way you get the tight, comfortable database behavior and can tie various gems in as you want to augment those models. I'd not bother implementing views, of course, and I'd consider implementing controllers in which the various render bits are removed and to use you instantiate an instance of the controller and call the action directly. This means the controller represents your API into your business logic still but the "views" it now "renders" are simply the return of the data output.
Then you could simply strip out the bits you do not need...the public directory, the view structure under app, config/routes.rb, etc. You'll need to test those changes incrementally and make sure that removing some now extraneous bit doesn't throw the Rails world into chaos.
Rails is for Web apps. That means HTTP. Now, you could package a Web app so that it runs on the desktop instead, or you could use ActiveRecord with a desktop application framework like Monkeybars.
Related
So I am starting out on company project that will have several components:
At first...
Job list
Client profile creation and management
User administration and access (login, signup, roles, etc)
later...
Messaging
Schedule
Basic reporting
way later...
Deeper analysis and bi
I'm wondering if it makes sense for each bullet item to be its own rails project, self contained and modular (if that is indeed the case); or if it's just best for it to be in the same app. I could envision a situation where each module could operate so independently of each other that it wouldn't need the rest (except for the user funcionality) and another situation where all modules would be used together.
It seems like to me that many tasks can be handled with a lighter framework like Sinatra (and then situated physically under the rails app). It also seems like it would be a lot of overhead to have several rails apps running on a server. But I am not totally aware of all the pluses and minuses to operating each scenario.
I know this is kind of a general question that is bound to get a lot of "it depends" kind of responses (and rightfully so) I was looking for opinions/examples of how you setup this kind/your kind of project in rails. I am a quasi noob so be gentle.
Thanks in advance!
Generally speaking I would consider a website to be a suitable target for a Rails app. Each part of the app can have its own namespaces within the app, so the app has some structure internally, but they should all be one application. Consider things like sessions, where you want a user to login and use whatever features of the site you want. You want those sessions in one application without a user having to login to different sections.
Saying that, if there is complex or extended functionality that isn't part of the MVC architecture (say talking to an external API, data-mining etc), then you could offset that to a separate project and a include it as a Gem in your application. You would still have one main Rails application that includes those Gems.
You might also want to bundle together a section of your project into a reusable Rails engine that can be loaded into multiple projects. For example, Devise handles user login and management. It is a Rails engine, bundled as a Gem, that you include in your project.
Another example from Meducation (one of my sites). I'm in the process of extracting our email tracking system out into its own Rails engine as I feel its functionality sits alongside Meducation and is not a core part of it. I can then use it in other projects as well.
In your specific example, I think your requirements fit fine in one Rails application.
We are planning to make a "large" website for I'd say 5000 up to many more users. We think of putting in lots of real time functionality, where data changes instantly propagate to all connected clients. New frameworks like Meteor and DerbyJS look really promising for this kind of stuff.
Now, I wonder if it is possible to do typical backend stuff like sending (bulk) emails, cleaning up the database, generating pdfs, etc. with those new frameworks. And in a way that is productive and doesn't suck. I also wonder how difficult it is to create complex forms with them. I got used to the convenient Rails view helpers and Ruby gems to handle those kind of things.
Meteor and DerbyJS are both quite new, so I do expect lots of functionality will be added in the near future. However, I also wonder if it might be a good idea to combine those frameworks with a "traditional" Rails app, that serves up certain complex pages which do not need realtime updates. And/or with a Rails or Sinatra app that provides an API to do the heavy backend processing. Those Rails apps could then access the same databases then the Meteor/DerbyJS app. Anyone thinks this is a good idea? Or rather not? Why?
It would be nice if anyone with sufficient experience with those new "single page app realtime" frameworks could comment on this. Where are they heading towards? Will they be able to handle "complete" web apps with authentication and backend processing? Will it be as productive/convenient to program with them as with Rails? Well, I guess no one can know that for sure yet ;-) Well, any thoughts, guesses and ideas are welcome!
For things like sending bulk emails and generating PDFs, Derby let's you simply use normal Node.js modules. npm now has over 10,000 packages, so there are packages for most things you might want to do on the server. Derby doesn't control your server, and it works on top of any normal Express server. You should probably stick with Node.js code as much as possible and not use Rails along with Derby. That is not to say that you can't send messages to a separate Rails app, but since you already have to have a Node.js app running to host Derby, you might as well use it for stuff like this.
To communicate with such server-side code, you can use Derby's model events. We are still exploring how this kind of code works and we don't have a lot of examples, but it is something that we will have a clear story around. We are building an app ourselves that communicates with an email server, so we should have some real experience with this pretty soon.
You can also just use a normal AJAX request or send a message over Socket.IO manually if you don't want to use the Derby model to do this kind of communication. You are free to make your own server-side only routes with Express along with your Derby app routes. We think it is nice to have this kind of flexibility in case there are any use cases that we didn't properly anticipate with the framework.
As far as creating forms goes, Derby has a very powerful templating system, and I am working on making it a lot better still. We are working on a new UI components feature that will make it possible to build libraries of self-contained UI widgets that can simply be dropped into a Derby app while still playing nicely with automatic view-model bindings and data syncing. Once this feature is completed, I think form component libraries will be written rather quickly.
We do expect to include all of the features needed for a normal app, much like Rails does. It won't look like Rails or work like Rails, but it will be similarly feature complete eventually.
For backend tasks (such as sending emails, cleaning up the database, generating pdfs) it's better to use resque or sidekiq
Now, I wonder if it is possible to do typical backend stuff like
sending (bulk) emails, cleaning up the database, generating pdfs, etc.
with those new frameworks. And in a way that is productive and doesn't
suck. I also wonder how difficult it is to create complex forms with
them. I got used to the convenient Rails view helpers and Ruby gems to
handle those kind of things.
Also, my question is not only about background jobs, but also about stuff one can might do during a request, like generating a pdf, or simply rendering complex views with rails helpers or code from gems. –
You're mixing metaphors here - a single page app is just a site where the content is loaded without doing a full page reload, be that a front end in pure js or you could use normal html and pjax.
The kind of things you are describing would be done in a background task regardless of the fornt-end framework you used. But +1 for sidekiq if you're using ruby.
As for notifying all the other users of things that have changed, you can look into using http://pusher.com or http://pubnub.com if you don't want to maintain a websocket server.
I am a rails developer working on a cakephp site. The more work they send me, the more php code I write and thus the more dependence on php we introduce. What I want is to stop writing new features in php and start writing them in rails. Our resources are limited and the existing php site is huge so a full port from cake to rails is not possible.
Is there some way to write new features in a rails app while maintaining and allowing access to all the functionality of the old php (and vice-versa)?
It seems I would need a route aware app to traffic requests to either php or rails, but then we run into the issue of, for example, existing user functionality written in php not being available to the rails app and vice-versa.
What about something to translate ruby into php? That way I could start writing my model stuff in ruby/rails rather than php.
I feel like my question is muddled by the fact I do not know how to ask the questions I want to answer, so hopefully this is understood.
As always, thanks in advance!
One approach that you may find useful is to leverage the power of your web-server to properly re-write and delegate requests to two different systems. If you can design your new Rails application to use the same database records as the old one, with models mapping to the old tables directly, and ensuring that sessions established by one are valid in the other, you have a lot of latitude in how you go about doing this.
Apache has a very full-featured URL rewriting and proxying system that can be configured to direct "legacy" parts of your site to an existing set of PHP scripts while directing all other traffic to the new Rails application. You will need to be careful to ensure the design of both applications are nearly identical or it may seem strange to users.
Another approach that helps ensure a consistent appearance is to strip out a lot of the theme from your PHP application. By creating very bare-bones pages that only expose the required functionality on each page, Rails can fetch these by passing through any relevant session authentication information and re-frame them in the right layout.
This way you can preserve existing functionality and have it embedded inside your new application. You can use something as simple as open-uri or the curb gem to handle this HTTP-level delegation.
You would end up with controllers that look like this:
class PaymentController < ApplicationController
def index
#content = fetch_legacy_url('/payments/index.php'))
end
end
The fetch_legacy_url method would create an HTTP fetch request that includes the required headers, cookies, and so forth, and return the response body. Your view then ends up looking something like this:
<%= #content =>
From there you can shunt parts of the PHP layout over to the Rails app piece by piece. For instance, ripping out large chunks of static HTML and putting them in the Rails template would reduce the amount of actual PHP code you have to port.
It's a bit messy to maintain two applications in parallel, but as you point out the alternative is to keep accumulating technical debt and making the inevitable re-write that much more significant an undertaking.
The first step would be to experiment and see if you can create a Rails environment that uses your existing data, or at least the data relevant to the new functionality you intend to build out.
I'm going to be collaborating with a Python developer on a web
application. I'm going to be building a part of it in Ruby and he is
going to build another part of it using Django. I don't know much about
Django.
My plan for integrating the two parts is to simply map a certain URL
path prefix (say, any request that begins with /services) to the Python
code, while leaving Rails to process other requests.
The Python and Ruby parts of the app will share and make updates to the
same MySQL datastore.
My questions:
What do people think generally of this sort of integration strategy?
Is there a better alternative (short of writing it all in one language)?
What's the best way to share sensitive session data (i.e. a logged in
user's id) across the two parts of the app?
As I see it you can't use Django's auth, you can't use Django's ORM, you can't use Django's admin, you can't use Django's sessions - all you are left with is URL mapping to views and the template system. I'd not use Django, but a simpler Python framework. Time your Python programmer expanded his world...
One possible way that should be pretty clean is to decide which one of the apps is the "main" one and have the other one communicate with it over a well-defined API, rather than directly interacting with the underlying database.
If you're doing it right, you're already building your Rails application with a RESTful API. The Django app could act as a REST client to it.
I'm sure it could work the other way around too (with the rest-client gem, for instance).
That way, things like validations and other core business logic are enforced in one place, rather than two.
A project, product, whatever you call it, needs a leader.
This is the first proof that you don't have one. Someone should decide either you're doing ruby or python. I prefer ruby myself, but I understand those who prefer python.
I think starting a product asking yourself those kind of questions is a BAD start.
If your colleague only knows prototype, and you only know JQuery, are you going to mix the technologies too? Same for DB? And for testing frameworks?
This is a never ending arguing subject. One should decide, IMHO, if you want so;ething good to happen. I work with a lot of teams, as a consultant, Agile teams, very mature teams for some of them, and that's the kind of stuff they avoid at all cost.
Except if one of you is going to work on some specific part of the project, which REALLY needs one or other of the technologies, but still think the other one is best for the rest of the application.
I think, for example, at a batch computing. You have ALL your web app in ror or django, and you have a script, called by CRON or whatever, computing huge amounts of data outside the web app, filling a DB or whatever.
My2Cts.
This is a bit of a weird meta-programming question, but I've realized that my new project doesn't need a full MVC framework, and being a rails guy, I'm not sure what to use now.
To give you a gist of the necessary functionality; this website will display static pages, but users will be able to log in and 'edit their current plans'. All purchasing and credit card editing is being handled by a recurring payment subscriber, I just need a page to edit their current plan. All of that will be done through (dynamic) XML API calls, so no database is necessary.
Should I stick with my typical rails/nginx stack, or is there something I could use that would lighten the load, since I don't need the Rails heft. I'm familiar with python and PHP but would prefer not to go that route. Is Sinatra a good choice here?
tl;dr: What's a good way to quickly serve mostly static pages, preferably in Ruby, with some pages requiring dynamic XML rendering?
If you want to stick with Ruby, Sinatra would be fine, as would Rails Metal.
If you're feeling a bit adventurous and want to get some useful experience with the technology that rails uses you could try building a Rack application. It's a pretty simple API to be able to respond to generic HTTP queries, and from there you can quickly build static file handling and XML processing. It's also considerably faster to start up and serve pages than rails.
http://github.com/cloudhead/toto is an example of a decent Rack based application.
If you know Rails, then why not just stick with it? That way you can use all authentication features, etc. that you're used to without having to learn another platform and incur the implementation risks that that includes. If the application ever grows beyond what's expected you're already on a solid base.