Related
soliciting advice about upgrading (or re-writing?) a legacy app. It's a single page webapp with lots of dynamically generated windows and forms, roughly comprised of
13,000 lines in .rb files
11,000 lines in .erb files
25,000 lines of javascript (not including large 3rd party libraries that bring this to nearer 60000 lines)
This acts as a UI for end users of our system, which also has a number of core business services (mostly written in Java, with a small amount of Node.js) and a fairly sizeable MySQL database (>200GB). Some of these services push AJAX to the client browser for real-time updates.
Reasons for upgrade
It's ruby 1.8.7, rails 2.3.15. Most of the core code dates from 2009. This makes it both insecure and hard to maintain (think "predates the existence of gemfiles".)
The app has been maintained by Java devs for most of its life, as most of the company's devs have been hired as Java devs to work on all the other services that perform business logic. It's probably safe to assume that this has lead to lots of hacks from people who didn't want to break anything, and certainly lots will not be done in a "rails way".
The javascript is also a bit of a mess. It's got a knot of frameworks (the original Angular is used sporadically; jquery and prototype are both fighting over the $ symbol in different places.) There are files that are 7000 lines long.
the css styling has been upgraded since 2009(!) but is starting to look a little tired. We'd like to implement a bootstrap theme that will look sharp without too much front-end skill, but right now the code that renders all of our pop-up windows, sidebars etc breaks badly if we try and add bootstrap.
It would be nice to modernise our push servers, replacing them with websockets.
Context
There are 3 of us on the dev team- this is my first job, and I've only been here since January. Of the other two, one has only been here about 4 months longer than me, and it's his first dev job too. The other guy is the only one who has ever spoken to someone who spoke to someone from the original team.
Oh, and of course we have little or no test coverage.
Options
When I was hired (as a Java developer), I was told that we were looking to replace the website with one based on Spring MVC. This effort is partially underway, having been attacked in drips and drabs over a couple of years. Because different devs who never met have attacked it as if it's their own brand new project, the same problems are solved in different ways in different places. They've tried some flashy techniques such as custom annotations that I find hard to follow, but as far as I can tell don't fully work. The most senior of us estimates it would take our team a year's dedicated full-time work to finish it (which is not a realistic business proposition, based on how many requests for new features we get from customers).
I'm inclined to upgrade the website rather than spin out a new one. This is partly because I can see the sense in that post. Another reason is that we're all employed as jack-of-all trade full stack developers (doubling as DBAs, sysadmins, etc...). We've got no particular expertise in UI design, and the UI for our present interface, although dated, is pretty user-friendly; it feels like a blank canvas would throw that structure out, and play to our weaknesses. Upgrading ruby/rails would also make any features we add during the upgrade much easier to add to the new site.
Apparently some experienced ruby devs who are friends with my boss have advised him informally it'd be so much work to bring the website up to date that it would be comparable to a complete re-write, which was the motivation for the spring project. This would have the advantage of only having to think about Java + javascript, and not trying to hire people who know both Java and ruby well.
Conventional wisdom seems to be upgrade rails in stages. I'm not sure how well this would work for us, for 2 reasons. For one thing, there 3 major versions for us to upgrade, which might have significant changes between them. More importantly, the code needs some TLC anyway with refactoring and the creation of a test suite.
I'm inclined to follow the following strategy:
Invest some developer time in training, to get a sense of the relevant best practises and the "rails ways" of doing things, rather than the "good enough to hack" knowledge most of us have now.
fire up a new rails 5.1 project on ruby 2.4.0
Configure active record to use our old database
Copy across the javascript from the public folder of the existing project in to the relevant parts of the asset pipeline and save that headache for "phase 2".
Sort out a gemfile with updated versions of our dependencies (for example, mysql gem has been replaced by a mysql2 gem.) Installing rubocop seems like a good idea at this point.
Copy files across from old to new project one at a time. Read the code, figure out what it's doing, write the relevant tests, fix where they break. Use the ruby API and rails upgrade guides to update the syntax. Refactor until rubocop is appeased.
Once we've reproduced the functionality of the existing site, write a new stackoverflow post on how to sort out the javascript ;)
This certainly sounds like a lot of work, but seems less likely to produce a buggy mess than trying to reproduce our existing functionality from scratch in a different language. So...
Questions
Does this strategy seem sensible? Is this a case where the re-write is really a better option? Is tackling the JS separately the best call, or is it better to restructure it as we're examining the calls to it from the views? Or should we really upgrade -> 3.0, 3.1, ... 5.0, 5.1?
We've altered the database manually, adding new tables, new fields and whatnot directly rather than using .rails generate. 'Rails magic' seems to make this work at present, but should we anticipate problems in step 3?
Is there any logical order in which to approach the migration of ruby? As there's major changes to the routing, which is the central entry point of the application, it seems sensible to start there, followed by authentication, then the main page, and then add functions one at a time.
Part of the problem is "not knowing what we don't know" about the rails way of doing things. Apart from the canonical Ruby/Rails tutorials (Hartl, Ruby Monk, Ruby Koans, Kehoe's rails book), is there any essential reading we should be aware of before trying to take on such a large job? I'm especially thinking about things that may not be immediately obvious, like proper use of helper functions, module structure, etc.
Any other advice, comments, prayers, ... welcome!
I am looking for GUI interface for my web application to see the stats for the memcached. How much memcached is used, How much is free.
It will be great if it can show keys stored in memcache and show the growth of the memcache consumed in form of charts etc
I came to know about one, Buts its in very early development.
Any suggestions?
Good to have:
It will be great if it integrates smoothly with my rails application.
A separate sub-domain will work.
PHP, Python or anything other solution will work
On Heroku I have an another application running and memcache addon provides good enough interface for it. Here is the screenshot.
There are numerous tools doing what you want; a very basic one (single PHP file) is MemachedGUI; a more complex one is phpMemcachedAdmin .
There isn't "one memcached GUI to rule them all"; however, the 2 projects cited above being open source, you should be able to customize them fairly easily to do your bidding (especially with regards to graph etc.).
Do keep in mind that there isn't a way to reliably and comprehensively view all the keys stored in memcached; tools that do display that are using this trick, which is very limited.
I want to make a community based site, which is Drupal's strength. However I also want to try other frameworks, especially Rails.
One of the best things about drupal is its huge modules library. If I were to switch to Rails, would I be able to find similar functionality freely available as plugins, or would I have to rebuild?
Does Rails have the equivalent of (as plugins or gems):
CCK/Fields?
Node Reference?
Views / Views Relationships?
PathAuto?
Threaded Commenting?
Multisite Functionality?
Apache Solr (or equivalent) Integration?
Thanks.
I'm afraid you'll probably hear this answer a lot, but it's not a suitable comparison.
Drupal is a ultimately a CMS, Rails is a framework. Apples to oranges, or perhaps even Apple Juice to oranges. Out of the box, you fire up Drupal and it does 'things': it has a database structure, the concept of nodes, interfaces blah, blah. If you fire up Rails you have an empty project.
As far as I know there isn't a "Drupal-on-Rails" project that would be a suitable equivalent. However, I can attest to the fact that there is an awful lot of Ruby/Rails community and O/S work out there and you might find something suitable. I'd also say that the level of modularity in Ruby and Rails tends to mean that the range of plugins/modules/gems one can use is much greater.
My personal $0.02. If Drupal does what you need, just use Drupal: it's mature and has a great community. It's never a good idea to try to port Project X over to a new language as a learning exercise because you'll inevitable fall into the "Well that's how it's done in language X!" trap and become disenchanted with the new system.
If you're wanting to learn Rails (which you should, it's awesome) I'd suggest you'd be best working on a small project and seeing what the ecosystem offers before deciding if it's suitable for the needs of your bigger projects.
I have to second what Govan said, but add to it.
With Drupal, unless you really want to get into building your own modules and extensions you are really interacting with an application. Even when you start using CCK, all you are really doing is flipping switches, filling in forms and defining new options for content on the site.
Ruby on Rails is two things, and neither of them bares much similarity to Drupal. You asked "How hard is it really?". To answer that you need to understand what both Ruby and Rails are. Ruby is a programming language designed to make the life of the object purist programmer simpler and more pleasant. So, the first part of how hard is it is simply to answer "how long do you feel it would take you to learn a completely new programming language, like PHP but different".
Rails is an 'opinionated' framework. It's opinionated in that it lays out how a Ruby web project should be structured, as well as providing multiple APIs for everything from database access to web presentation. To answer the "how hard is it" question for Rails then (assuming you know Ruby by this point), you have to answer how much do you need to learn about cacheing, database design, page design, RESTful programming etc etc.
It's not a short journey. you asked if there is an equivalent to CCK for Ruby and Rails which implies to me that at this point your knowledge of programming is somewhat limited. Ruby and Rails interact with the database. CCK lets you define things in a database. Thus, with Ruby and Rails you are effectively bypassing the wonderful dialogs and forms that CCK provides you with and doing the data definition bits yourself, by hand, in code.
From experience, when I've hired experts in another programming language and framework into my Rails teams, it has taken them between 1 and 3 months to get productive, and a further 3 to 6 months for their productivity to start to raise and approach that of the Rails experts on my team.
Thus, in your particular case, I would not recommend a switch away from Drupal to Ruby on Rails.
Drupal (core) on ohloh (130k lines of code) is estimated to be 34 years of work worth.
Drupal (contributions) on ohloh (modules for Drupal 4-6 (7M lines of code)) is estimated to be 2113 years of work.
That is the power of a community, and that is something that you can never replicate. I remeber there was a guy, who tried to port Drupal to python calling it drupy, but that project died before something useful ever came out of it. Even if you copy the code, you can never copy the community.
The thing you need to realize, is that each community is different. So even if you find a project that can solve your code needs in a RoR or a different language/framework, it will never be like Drupal and vice versa.
So don't try to find a replacement for Drupal, but go explore and try new things. You might end up learning new things, that you can use for your Drupal projects.
I've read this times and times again that people saying comparing drupal an ror is comparing apple to orange which is wrong.
I think the saying itself BS. Yes we want to compare apple to orange and find out which is better. We even want to compare apple to steak. Said that, they are different. Yes, we all know. I have limited experience with either. I first thought Drupal was great and can help me build the website I wanted overnight (or over a week or month) then it didn't happen (not blaming Drupal).
My impression is that, Drupal maybe still great but it has a learning curve and needs a lot of other knowledge or talents to use it well and tweak it. RoR on the other hand is a more general framework and needs programming (Drupal needs too actually).
If you are more of a web designer person with a little PHP maybe Drupal is better fit.
If you are more of a web developer type don't want to spend time looking for modules and make them work but rather do them yourself (not really from ground up) then maybe RoR is for you (with the same amount of learning). So yes they are both good for different purpose, background, etc.
For now I will go with RoR (or dJango and other ORANGEs). My 2 cents.
Rails, since version 3.0, has officially adopted the once-controversial engine way of incorporating third-party apps. this is roughly the equivalent of Drupal's modules/plug-ins, from a 10k foot perspective. To build a community-based site, you could make use of an engine called, appropriately enough, "Community Engine." http://communityengine.org/features.html"
The Rails ecosystem doesn't have anywhere near the same number of modules Drupalists have available to them, but there are enough good quality ones to cover the chief basics.
Drupal has so many strong areas, its hard for just one or two people to recreate it in a decent amount of time with any language. PHP, Ruby, Python, etc.
You have the core node system, taxonomy, aliasing, menus, users, permissions, and modules, the database api, and form api, among others.
You'd have to know how to assemble all these pieces independently and create the structure necessary for it to all work together.
It would take more than 'a few hours'. I would say, even if you are a ROR master, you're looking at a year to two years of solid consistent work to get the best parts of Drupal for a new system.
I am a front end developer (HTML,CSS,JS & jQuery) I know a bit of PHP. I am trying to grasp what Ruby/Ruby on Rails is.
On http://rubyonrails.org/ it says "Ruby on Rails is an open-source web framework that's optimized for programmer happiness"
In actual, non-dreamy terms, what is special about Ruby/Ruby on Rails, and how can a person like myself benefit from learning to use it?
My simple question is: whose sister is it? PHP, mySQL, ASP, coldFusion, jsp, apache?
What does it do?
The Language
Ruby is a recent programming language that shares most of its heritage with Perl and Smalltalk. You can see what Ruby looks like (and try it yourself) at tryruby.org.
Just like you can use PHP to write web pages, you can do the same thing with Ruby.
The Framework
Ruby on Rails is a set of software devices that help you to more easily write a website in Ruby. The primary things they try to facilitate ("make easy") are:
Storing related data (e.g. blog posts and the comments on them) to a database.
Accepting web requests and respond to them programmatically (e.g. check a user's password)
Composing HTML using your data, with layouts and templates to make it easier.
"Rails," as it's called for short, is built with extreme prejudice towards certain application models, particularly MVC. What this means is that unlike PHP, where any .php source file is fair game for any bit of code, most code in a Rails application is written in a particular, conventional place. When people compare Rails to PHP, they often point this out.
There's a lot I didn't cover, but these are Rails' most basic features. To see what it looks like, I'd suggest watching the infamous, "Creating a Weblog..." screencast.
If you're looking for something to compare it to for someone coming from PHP, think of it like CakePHP for ruby. It's a bunch of pre-developed low-level classes and systems that can then be extended out to use in many different systems. It also bundles in a lot of other helpful tools and a plugin architecture. It uses ruby and an HTML templating language based on ruby (erb) rather than PHP.
It's a framework for Ruby whose sweet spot is CRUD based web apps. They make a number of assumptions (aka "conventions") that make it easy and fast to create tables with 1:1, 1:m, and m:n relationships, objects, controllers, and web pages for exposing and manipulating that data on the web.
Ruby is just another object-oriented language, like Java, C++, or C#. It was invented by a gentleman from Japan.
This might not be the best analogy, but like you would use HTML/CSS/JS to display a cohesive entity with specific stuff in their specific places. Rails provides a framework to allow you to work in an organized environment with specific stuff in their specific places. As well as having goodies to provide for more rapid development.
Generally:
Html would contain the content you want to display, while CSS would help control the specific look of that content, while JS would allow you to manipulate or interacte with said content.
Rails, uses MVC (Model, View, Controller) to provide a similar organization. Where Data objects are generally categorized as Models, while Views control the displaying of the Data. And Controllers would would facilitate the flow of that data from View to Model and vice versa.
Rails is not the only game in town. So do look around, as there are other great frameworks out there, and find the one best suited to your style and language needs.
Philosophy and design
Ruby on Rails is intended to emphasize Convention over Configuration (CoC), and the rapid development principle of Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY).
"Convention over Configuration" means a developer only needs to specify unconventional aspects of the application. For example, if there is a class Sale in the model, the corresponding table in the database is called sales by default. It is only if one deviates from this convention, such as calling the table "products sold", that the developer needs to write code regarding these names. Generally, this leads to less code and less repetition.
"Don't repeat yourself" means that information is located in a single, unambiguous place. For example, using the ActiveRecord module of Rails, the developer does not need to specify database column names in class definitions. Instead, Ruby on Rails can retrieve this information from the database based on the class name.
Taken from wikipedia
Ruby An elegant object-oriented programming language with objects like Smalltalk and syntax something like Python and Perl. It's kind of what PHP would have been had it been done right. That is, Ruby takes features from advanced "real" languages and combines them with the interpreted efficient syntax and library-rich practicality of Perl, Python, and PHP.
RailsAn advanced web framework. Many recent web frameworks are considered to be copies of or at least inspired by Rails. (Google "rails clone".) "The first good web framework".
Both Ruby and Rails are generally highly regarded.
Ruby is an object oriented programming language. Rails is a framework built in Ruby for developing web applications. I have been using rails for about 6 months now, and its been great so far. If you want some of the same features of rails, you should also consider django (python), cakephp or symfony (php).
Pros:
MVC Architecture - Code is organized,
broken up into small, manageable
files
Database abstraction - you dont have
to write SQL queries, database types
are easily interchanged
Convention over Configuration - rails automatically knows file, database, variable names without explicitly being specified
Fast Development - Rails requires less lines of code because of all the functions it automatically takes care of and is more expressive, resulting in faster development
Cons:
Slower - this is often debated, but a comparable rails application is slower than its PHP counterpart. Rails 3 is supposedly going to include speed increases.
Less Literature - rails lacks the plethora of tutorials, books and api that is available for PHP.
Less Hosting Support - Not all shared hosts support rails, but you can set it up on any vps or dedicated. Deployment is also a bit tougher in Rails as opposed to PHP
Ruby is a programming language. Ruby on Rails is a piece of software written in Ruby, it helps you develop web applications.
You can look at Ruby on Rails as if it is a set of tools. It helps you do common tasks when you're making a dynamic web application. E.g. session handling, cookies, database interaction, etc.
Rails goes beyond being just a library, though. To really understand this, you would have to experiment with it, which is actually very easy.
Rails Guides is a fantastic place to start.
This question contains a lot of background information, to make sure you fully understand why we are looking at these technologies.
The question is basically this:
For a large, spreadsheet-type, module that we need to develop for our webmodule for our application, are there any pitfalls we should know about if we decide to use Silverlight for it?
Issues we already know, and don't need any discussion/reminders about:
We're aware of the problems around using a plugin-type solution, which may or may not be installed on the users machine (and in some cases, probably can't be installed). These risks needs to be mitigated, but we're aware of them. Please don't get hung up on this.
We're a .NET company, so while ruby on rails and lots of other different platforms and architectures are good for this solution, they are not in the scope of the decision here. We have lots of code already written in .NET that we need to take advantage of, otherwise the project will never be finished regardless of platform.
Background
We have a web module for our application with employee-related information and some input forms. Our Windows desktop application is mostly a department leader type of application, to manage employees, but the web module contains mostly employee-centric functions. The web module contains mostly report-type webpages, to list information from the system, or input-forms.
The module we need to add now is more of a heavy spreadsheet type application. You change something one place, and something changes somewhere else, like sums, what is enabled/disabled, etc.
We know we can manage all of that with AJAX, but another issue here is that the application will potentially load a lot of database data in order to put the data in front of the user, and with a AJAXy solution, we're afraid that the request/response method here will have to reload quite a lot of information on every request, even to respond to seemingly easy questions.
A way to mitigate that would basically be to load information into a Session-object or similar, but that's a big no-no, so we'd rather not do that. This is a multi-user module, and some of the data is rather static, but some of the data is also going to have to be refreshed from time to time, so if 10 users loads a lot of data into the session, that's going to be a pretty big memory-hit.
We will be using ASP.NET (MVC) for this if we choose to go this route, that is, developing the module in pure HTML and similar technologies.
Then we looked at Silverlight, and would then load all the information down into the Silverlight application on the client. It would hold the current state, and would only need to touch the database to refresh some of the information, some of the time, instead, as we think the request/response model with ASP.NET (MVC) would work, on every little request.
But, since we have only done minor things with Silverlight, we're not that experienced with it, and we're afraid that some assumptions we might have, stated or unconcious, turns out to be wrong or flawed, which will make this project impossible or very hard to manage at some point.
For instance, just to take an example, is there a limit to how much memory the Silverlight application is allowed to load (I know, if I have to ask I can probably not afford it), for instance if there is a limit on 10MB, then that would be nice to know about before we're midway and start to load the really heavy data.
To make it simpler to give examples, let's just assume we're building a spreadsheet, that has so much data, that for the simple "changed a number here, what else changed", too much data from the database has to be loaded for a proper request/response model to be used, and if we move the entire thing to Silverlight, what will make that project hard or impossible?
Knowing about such things would at least give us the ability to consider if the price is acceptable.
In short, why should we not use Silverlight for this and instead go for ASP.NET (MVC)?
And again, "use Ruby on Rails instead", is not really an answer here. The options are ASP.NET (MVC) which we have experience with, or Silverlight which we don't but can gain.
Of course, if Ruby on rails, given that we'd have to start pretty much from scratch infrastructure-wise, and have to learn a new programming language, and framework, and download and learn a new IDE/tool, if it would still allow us to cut the development time in half, then please give us some information about how that might work, but I daresay that won't really happen here.
You should know that Silverlight (version 3.0) does not support any printing whatsoever, which to me sounds like a whopper of a showstopper for you (sorry, I couldn't resist). The good news is that full printing support has been added in version 4, but that is still in beta. Rumours say it should be out before the summer if everything works out according to plan, so if that fits with your roadmap I would use SL4 right from the start.
There are no memory limitations in Silverlight, but for the local storage (IsolatedStorage) mechanism there is a default limit of 1MB. But you can easily get around that by asking the users permission to increase the local storage space when he/she starts up the application. More on that here: Silverlight Tip of the Day #20 – How to Increase your Isolated Storage Quota.
(Edit)
Aside from the missing printing functionality that will be fixed in SL4 I cannot see any problems with your scenario. I would easily take the Silverlight route if I were you, especially since you already have extensive knowledge of .NET/C#.
For a rich interface as you've described, I would definately go with Silverlight or Flash rather than a html/javascript/ajax solution.
These technologies make for much better and consistent interfaces across platforms, you can buy in various components to speed things up and support things like copy-n-paste and code in a more structured way.
Another element is skills, if you have the skills to achieve it in a particular technology, then go with that.
To the answer you question the best way I can; you should not use silverlight if you decide to use flash.
HTH