I have an app written in `RAILS' and i want to add few features to the project but i feel like using django to write those features since i am more comfortable in Python/Django.is there any way i can write the app in django and tel Rails server to handle the request to forward the request once django part user is clicked.
The only idea I have in mind to make this work is for the Django app to provide an API that the Rails app could use. But why would you want to mix the two up? I don't think this is a good idea. Besides using Django only to write certain features is under utilizing it.
If there truly was benefit to introduce an entirely new stack into your environment (personally I question that benefit but you certainly more about your requirements more than I do), I'd go the path of messaging versus a more service driven approach. Going with messaging will better insulate your systems from each other and give you a lot more flexibility which will come in handy as both systems evolve.
Related
I consider myself a well trained WordPress template developer, and i recently started to read books and documents about web app frameworks, particularly Django and Ruby on Rails. I didn't know any of the two languages, but i have no problems to learn another one or two. I really don't get the real benefits of using a framework, because i feel very confident about the power of WordPress. So, can anyone tell me the real benefits of using a framework? For example, Pinterest is made using Django, but i think that i can achieve the same results with a WordPress template using Javascript and CSS3. Can anyone tell me the differences/benefits of using a framework in that particular case?
You can achieve the same frontend with Wordpress, but what you will not be able to achieve is the speed and scale - and most importantly, maintainability - of an application based on a more application-oriented architecture.
Wordpress is highly flexible, but it's also slow, and needs an awful lot of TLC to be able to operate at any kind of significant scale. Its design allows for very flexible runtime modification of behavior, but this is also a bit of a Pandora's Box, since it means that code can end up running all over the place for any given page, which makes maintenance a nightmare.
Wordpress is extremely good at being a CMS, but once you start to push it outside of those bounds, you get into trouble, and find yourself having to write your own more abstract framework that runs inside of the context of Wordpress to be able to fulfill your application's needs.
That said, if you have an application that you can build in the context of Wordpress, I'd say go for it! Wordpress can be a wonderful tool for building a proof-of-concept or MVP. If it gets you up and running, then it may be the right choice over writing a full application. However, just be aware that you're going to hit some brick walls as your product design matures and your audience grows, unless your application fits within a rather narrow set of design requirements, so long-term, you may find yourself having to move to a custom application.
Credentials: I've spent the last couple of years maintaining a Wordpress install that served over 25 million monthly uniques, and we had to get very clever to keep it running. We've since replaced it with a Rails application that serves pages somewhere on the order of 10x-30x faster, and is significantly more extensible as an application, allowing us to start exploring application potential that we really couldn't get with Wordpress.
I once made the decision while working in some start-up to choose WordPress for an advanced e-commerce, community-driven marketplace.
It was an awful decision
This is how I was feeling:
At the beginning, it was looking good - you have an amazing community, plugins for everything etc. But sooner than later I hit the wall - at it's root - WordPress is a blogging platform!
Every piece of content technically is a post.
It's really hard to create advanced item relationships
Functionalities are not consistent. Some functions work one way, while others that seems to be very similar work in a different way. Sometimes you need some weird hacks to achieve task that seem to be simple. It makes you read the docs very often to see how a function that you're using for the 1000th time is working. (However, to be honest, I need to say that the WordPress documentation is great!)
The WordPress community is doing a great job, but compared to any regular Framework there is one main difference - Frameworks are just frameworks - they're a set of tools and those tools are there to help you do your project. WordPress already is trying to be something that you might then change.
I'll never again use WordPress for anything that needs some organised, custom functionality.
I'm actually quite impressed with what people has created with wordpress - so if you want to, it is possible and good luck!
It however often feels like buying a truck and rebuilding it to be a house. There are better ways to build a house.
I want to offer a dissenting opinion, even though I upvoted the top answer.
Is Rails really special?
Rails was created by David Hansson who extracted it from Basecamp, software that's replicated in a free Wordpress plugin, WP Project Manager. I think that's a pretty good indicator that Rails developers are underestimating PHP and Wordpress.
MVC and WP
True, it doesn't follow an MVC pattern. But if you use hooks, separate logic (in plugins) from views (in templates), then you'll have good code separation. (Also hint: custom post types are like models.)
Framework vs Application
As you can see, Wordpress can be treated like an application or a framework. It is an application, with all the components you'd expect to find in a framework. Right out of the box you have security, authentication, and extendibility. And it's meant to be extended.
Scaling
WP powers 18% of the internet's websites, including TechCrunch, Smashing Magazine, and (parts of) CNN. Seems there are ways to make WP scale. Disclaimer: I have no experience working on megasites like these, so I'm offering mere conjecture.
WP Future
The current abition of the WP community is to shift WP from a CMS to a framework. I think it's a natural progression considering that all the pieces are in place. And the Wordpress community is going strong.
Not really an answer, but a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks
As if you can replace it completely... I think it is mostly a matter of logic flow. It depends how much imperative (Ruby on Rails) vs. descriptive (WordPress) programming you intend to do.
I don't think wordpress can replace rails, because wordpress have limited set of API and support as you compare it with RoR. Though wordpress is powerful tool for blogging application, but the same effect can be achieved with rails using gems like,
Radiant CMS,
Refinery CMS,
Locomotive.
Adding the power like ttd that can be done vary easily with rails is very difficult with wordpress.
Same with authentication and authorization mechanism like devise and cancan. There is no easy option to do the same with wordpress.
Rails make the programmer's life easier. For whole web app I will always prefer to go with the rails.
Wordpress cannot replace X framework, but the two can certainly complement each other.
For example a WP front end serving up CMS content with an attractive theme is pretty hard to beat; proxy to a back end server for custom content and voila, best of both worlds. Otherwise, WP will inevitably fall short of meeting every requirement and you'll find yourself going down the square-peg-round-hole rabbit hole, a painful place indeed; that's where X framework comes in, filling in the WP gaps.
The notion that WP does not scale may have some truth to it, but for the general case, the 95%, it will handle whatever you throw at it, particularly with WP Cache or other caching plugin thrown into the mix.
Some may say, well, you can build WP with Django or RoR! Heh, heh, you first ;-)
FWIW, I avoid dynamic language frameworks in favor of their statically/strongly typed counterparts. Use WP for the bling, and static X framework for the speed/scalability/safety. Of course, that's a matter of preference, clearly some prefer runtime flexibility over compile time safety. I'm fully in the latter camp these days...
In the simplest term,, I always want to put it like this...
You can use a framework to make WordPress it self and better
But you can't use WordPress to make a framework
Wordpress is a great CMS any way
Pros
1. We can easily set up a website using free themes and plugins
2. There are numerous number of plugins to extend our website functionality
3. Excellent Community support
4. The CMS uses PHP and MySQL, somewhat easy to lean
Cons
1. Updating plugins and themes regularly.
2. Slow
3. Malicious files can be easily injected.
Up to now I've always used PHP with or without a framework but a month ago I decided to start something new: Ruby and Rails, I found them quite easy and similar to PHP and some PHP frameworks in how they works but using a simpler syntax and many other advantages.
Some days ago I started reading about Node.js, Node.js vs Rails, "why node.js is better"...
I'm a bit confused but my objective is to learn something modern that will not become obsolete in a few months so:
What are the main differences between Rails/Ruby and Node.js and a framework based on it like Express.js (except that one is written in JS and the other in Ruby)?
What are the main advantages/disadvantages of using Node.js and framework based on it instead of a Ruby based solution like Rails?
Thanks!
There aren't enough differences between Node.js and Rails for it to practically matter.
A lot of what Node.js can do can be pulled off in Rails with things like EventMachine and Pusher. So unless you are really familiar with Rails' limitations, and know you'll be pushing the boundaries, you'd be hard pressed to make something a seasoned Rails developer couldn't do.
Having built apps in Node and Express I can say that they alone aren't enough to make a sexy application. They can seem just as old and stale if you don't have an outstanding frontend UI to facilitate the backend possibilities. Instead of comparing backend servers, I think the real future of doing amazing things is in front-end JavaScript frameworks like Backbone.js that use Express/Rails/Node.js on the backend.
I have chosen to go in the direction of Backbone.js with Rails as my backend API server. Because it's so easy to rapidly create a very nice RESTful backend server in Rails. Rails also makes working with CoffeeScript and precompiling/organizing Backbone code a breeze. There are already decent Backbone.js gems out there for Rails.
The Rails core is also able to acknowledge and embrace the fact that frontend JS MVCs are logically a good next step, and they have been working to strengthen the bond between the two. For those same reasons they have also worked to make Rails an even better API server so that it can work with frontend JS easier. Node.js and Express aren't putting as much effort to coordinate with frontend JavaScript MVCs as the Rails community is.
Being good with a JavaScript frontend MVC and Rails as a backend makes you also great for both worlds in terms of getting a job. You will easily be able to hop onto a Node.js project and add value to that team with your superior frontend experience, and you can also roll with the punches on a Ruby on Rails team and add value to them as well.
As official Node.js website explains it:
Node.js is a platform built on Chrome's JavaScript runtime for easily building fast, scalable network applications. Node.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight and efficient, perfect for data-intensive real-time applications that run across distributed devices.
On the other hand Ruby on Rails official website says:
Ruby on Rails is an open-source web framework that's optimized for programmer happiness and sustainable productivity. It lets you write beautiful code by favoring convention over configuration.
Given this I guess that it is more appropriate to compare Ruby and Node.js, but even this is not quite right given that Ruby is programming language and Node.js is NOT. You could probably compare JavaScript with Ruby but I guess that is not what you meant to ask with this question :)
So, for me, key point in understanding what Node.js truly tries to accomplish is well described on Node.js about page. Key Node.js idea (for me) is described in this sentences:
Node is similar in design to and influenced by systems like Ruby's Event Machine or Python's Twisted. Node takes the event model a bit further—it presents the event loop as a language construct instead of as a library. In other systems there is always a blocking call to start the event-loop. Typically one defines behavior through callbacks at the beginning of a script and at the end starts a server through a blocking call like EventMachine::run(). In Node there is no such start-the-event-loop call. Node simply enters the event loop after executing the input script. Node exits the event loop when there are no more callbacks to perform. This behavior is like browser javascript—the event loop is hidden from the user.
What this should enable you, is that you should be able to easily write highly concurrent programs without even thinking about concurrency using JavaScript syntax and callback functions as basic concurrent runnable units.
Your fear that either Rails or Node.js will be gone in a week is unfounded. Rails has a large community and will be around for a very long time even though currently (early 2012) it's getting a bit of hate thrown its way. Node.js is just getting started and has so much attention I don't think it will have any problems getting to the Rails level some day.
That said I've been evaluating Node.js and Rails as options for a project and the reasons I choose Node.js over Rails are:
"The Rails Way" - In my (admittedly limited) experience with Rails it really seems like you either do it the Rails way or you are going to be in for a world of pain. A big part of the Rails way is to use the ActiveRecord model. The advantage of this is that there are a lot of gems that work with your code happily because they know you'll be using ActiveRecord. The disadvantage is you are mixing your data access & model. I am not a fan of this idea so the Rails way for me still seems a bit.. off.
JavaScript is a key part of client side web development and the idea of using it on the client and server is interesting. I'm not super strong at JavaScript and I can't imagine a better way to get better then to have to use it everywhere.
My project has real time communication needs which while I'm sure can be done in Rails there seems to be quite a bit of positive mention on Nodes ability to handle this with socket.io being the front runner option.
At the end of the day no matter which you choose you will have a great time & learn a ton of new stuff that will change how you write code. If you're not on a big time crunch I'd recommend building a small project management tool in both and see which you prefer.
Either way.. Good Luck!
2 things - performance & productivity.
Performance (more details here)
(source: jslang.info)
Productivity (how fast you can build that app)
Ruby on Rails is specialized and highly productive tool for creating so called Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications (99% of internet sites are such apps). In my subjective judgement and experience in this area Rails about 2-4 times more productive than node.js or express.js.
For Web 3.0 apps (realtime things, client-side MVC, etc.) this isn't true, RoR doesn't keep its advantage there.
So choice depends on use case and priorities.
I know a lot more about Node.js than I do about Ruby. That being said, Ruby is much more widely adopted. It is currently a very hot skill to have in the work place. Some may argue with me on this but I think that Node.js is still "under development" and will be for a little bit longer. It has a lot of promise but just hasn't been adopted by many companies and projects yet.
I'm trying to write a scalable interactive chat application for an existing high traffic website. It needs to be scalable on day 1, and chat's concurrency and multi-broadcast issues make it a tricky thing to scale.
My initial plan was to write the whole thing in rails and refactor the chat server into erlang later.
Although I am an experienced PHP dev and sysadmin, both node.js and RoR are new and extremely alien technologies to me, so I could use a little help understanding the core concepts and applications in this scenario. With so many new technologies, it is hard to understand them all.
Firstly, I recommend you review http://ajaxim.com/. The software is a pre-packaged version of what you want that relies on Node JS (far easier than rolling your own).
If you still want to write something yourself and have no experience with either technology, I recommend you review some introductory materials:
Node JS and Rails
The two sources are not free but will give you a quick one hour crash course on each technology.
You can also have a look at http://pusherapp.com ! This is if you want to implement a chat app right away.
If on the other hand, you want to implement one all by yourself, Node.js + Socket.io is your best bet. However, if you want chat rooms and stuff, have a look at this:
http://github.com/shripadk/express-juggernaut-demo
This demo app uses Express.JS framework and Juggernaut 2.
I would suggest going for only Node.js if you are building apps that require high concurrency. Its fairly easy to implement a chat room using Node.js compared to other server-side languages (mainly thanks to modules like socket.io). The event-driven architecture of Node.js makes it really easy to implement such stuff. The only catch with Node is that you have to think everything asynchronous! If you are good at Javascript then Node.js should be easy to learn.
I am a somewhat experienced rubyist, but I am now starting to do rails development. I know rails is used to make "web applications" but what exactly does that mean? Do you build entire sites with rails or do you build a feature for a website in rails, and integrate it in to an existing website? (I know this question is kind of vague, but any answers to how ROR is used in the creation of websites would be much appreciated).
Generally speaking, you will build a full site with Rails, though you can integrate it into an existing website, as well. It is designed to provide a top-to-bottom solution for entire websites.
For standalone features or small scripts you just want to expose to the web, you might look at something like Sinatra or Camping.
What is Ruby on Rails?
I'm also build some rails applications in that I had entirely use rails to develop my web application. It's quite easy rather than using two or three languages. But when I developed I had to use Javascripts, CSS and Ajax to create more attractively
For me it's a great framework to build website and minimal knowledge is required although experience and knowledge of ruby gives you an upper hand.
I also feel that rails is good not only to build websites but to manage it.
Also the support community of rails is awesome and is complemented by guys like Ryan bates with their screen casts.
Also when we build a website using ror, we have the flexibility to concentrate on different features at different times or by different person.
This gets a great modular structure.
So you can design the basic functionality today and tell your colleague to get the views attractive using JS and friends without affecting your functionality.
Also the external support for rails (like gems and plug ins) is awesome and makes life heaven!
I would suggest that it's a great framework and the best feature is that it is a very easy to begin and learn but it always surprises you with new things.
Thus it allows you to learn a lot!
Hope it helps.
The website/web application distinction is made because there are many Rails apps in existence with no front end or 'website' to speak of. Using Rails, one could serve JSON amongst a cluster of compute nodes for data aggregation, or text to unix sockets for display on terminals. The uses for Rails are only limited by ones imagination, and you could even use Rails for single host interprocess communication if you desired. This might prove effective for a highly skilled rails programmer rather than learn a new tool to achieve similar results.
How can i write a cloud-aware application? e.g. an application that takes benefit of being deployed on cloud. Is it same as an application that runs or a vps/dedicated server? if not then what are the differences? are there any design changes? What are the procedures that i need to take if i am to migrate an application to cloud-aware?
Also i am about to implement a web application idea which would need features like security, performance, caching, and more importantly free. I have been comparing some frameworks and found that django has least RAM/CPU usage and works great in prefork+threaded mode, but i have also read that django based sites stop to respond with huge load of connections. Other frameworks that i have seen/know are Zend, CakePHP, Lithium/Cake3, CodeIgnitor, Symfony, Ruby on Rails....
So i would leave this to your opinion as well, suggest me a good free framework based on my needs.
Finally thanks for reading the essay ;)
I feel a matrix moment coming on... "what is the cloud? The cloud is all around us, a prison for your program..." (what? the FAQ said bring your sense of humour...)
Ok so seriously, what is the cloud? It depends on the implementation but usual features include scalable computing resource and a charge per cpu-hour, storage area etc. So yes, it is a bit like developing on your VPS/a normal server.
As I understand it, Google App Engine allows you to consume as much as you want. The back-end resource management is done by Google and billed to you and you pay for what you use. I believe there's even a free threshold.
Amazon EC2 exposes an API that actually allows you to add virtual machine instances (someone correct me please if I'm wrong) having pre-configured them, deploy another instance of your web app, talk between private IP ranges if you wish (slicehost definitely allow this). As such, EC2 can allow you to act like a giant load balancer on the front-end passing work off to a whole number of VMs on the back end, or expose all that publicly, take your pick. I'm not sure on the exact detail because I didn't build the system but that's how I understand it.
I have a feeling (but I know least about Azure) that on Azure, resource management is done automatically, for you, by Microsoft, based on what your app uses.
So, in summary, the cloud is different things depending on which particular cloud you choose. EC2 seems to expose an API for managing resource, GAE and Azure appear to be environments which grow and shrink in the background based on your use.
Note: I am aware there are certain constraints developing in GAE, particularly with Java. In a minute, I'll edit in another thread where someone made an excellent comment on one of my posts to this effect.
Edit as promised, see this thread: Cloud Agnostic Architecture?
As for a choice of framework, it really doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. If you are planning on deploying to one of these platforms you might want to check framework/language availability. I personally have just started Django and love it, having learnt python a while ago, so, in my totally unbiased opinion, use Django. Other developers will probably recommend other things, based on their preferences. What do you know? What are you most comfortable with? What do you like the most? I'd go with that. I chose Django purely because I'm not such a big fan of PHP, I like Python and I was comfortable with the framework when I initially played around with it.
Edit: So how do you write cloud-aware code? You design your software in such a way it fits on one of these architectures. Again, see the cloud-agnostic thread for some really good discussion on ways of doing this. For example, you might talk to some services on GAE which scale. That they are on GAE (example) doesn't really matter, you use loose coupling ideas. In essence, this is just a step up from the web service idea.
Also, another feature of the cloud I forgot to mention is the idea of CDN's being provided for you - some cloud implementations might move your data around the globe to make it more efficient to serve, or just because that's where they've got space. If that's an issue, don't use the cloud.
I cannot answer your question - I'm not experienced in such projects - but I can tell you one thing... both CakePHP and CodeIgniter are designed for PHP4 - in other words: for really old technology. And it seems nothing is going to change in their case. Symfony (especially 2.0 version which is still in heavy beta) is worth considering, but as I said on the very beginning - I can not support this with my own experience.
For designing applications for deployment for the cloud, the main thing to consider if recoverability. If your server is terminated, you may lose all of your data. If you're deploying on Amazon, I'd recommend putting all data that you need persisted onto an Elastic Block Storage (EBS) device. This would be data like user generated content/files, the database files and logs. I also use the EBS snapshot on a 5 day rotation so that's backed up itself. That said, I've had a cloud server up on AWS for over a year without any issues.
As for frameworks, I'm giving Grails a try at the minute and I'm quite enjoying it. Built to be syntactically similar to Rails but runs on the JVM. It means you can take advantage of all the Java goodness, like threading, concurrency and all the great libraries out there to build your web application.