[Nitro] Documentation Documentation

Dan North tastapod at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 05:16:08 EST 2007


Whilst we are on the subject of Og, here's a request that came from inside
ThoughtWorks. I'm interested in how it fits into the current model for Og:

<quote>
I want unit of work so that I don't have to manually remember to flush to
the database or remember arcane rules about persistance through reachability
for different collection mappings.

I want Hibernate-style HQL so I can perform complex reporting style queries
expressed in my domain language and so that I can map legacy schemas without
having to remember ugly table/column names.

I want several levels of caching so that I can be clever about caching data
for read-mostly applications. (And anyone telling me ActiveRecord or plugins
can already do this does not know what they're talking about.)
</quote>

Thoughts?

How much effort would it be to integrate a Unit-of-Work pattern into Og? Or
should I be thinking about a whole other ORM here? As for the HQL-style
queries, I would prefer to see an embedded DSL that supported
database-independent queries, something like LINQ meets HQL. Perhaps that's
a separate project that would play nice with Og?

Thanks,
Dan


On 11/2/07, Robert Mela <rob at robmela.com> wrote:
>
> The Og/Legacy DB question offers a good use-case scenario for the
> documentation process.   It was next on my list for cheatsheets, so I'm
> already willing to generate *something*.
>
> So the use case is this -- how do I generate that entry such that Arne
> can easily integrate it into what he's doing?  Or should I just write a
> cheatsheet now, and Arne or whoever can use it as input for their own
> version of docs?
>
> One scenario I envision is that Arne is Documentation Tsar.   Generating
> documentation himself, but also farming work out to other volunteers.
> I'm willing to write submissions as they occur to me, write submissions
> as per DocTsar requests, or do legwork and research, legwork, code
> reading, and experimentation for things anyone else is thinking about
> writing about.
>
> So, let's take Og and Legacy Databases as a use case scenario for a
> documentation process and me as an example volunteer.  How might a
> process work?
>
> Dan North wrote:
> > I'm really excited about this. There is already a buzz inside
> > ThoughtWorks about this announcement. It would be great to see a
> > genuine viable alternative to the rails / active record world.
> >
> > I see nitro having two significant advantages over rails:
> >
> > * It is just so easy to use. I really do struggle to get my head
> > around rails. There is a surprising amount of hidden "tacit" knowledge
> > required to become effective with rails, given that it is supposed to
> > be entirely convention based. I describe it as the difference between
> > struts and webwork (for anyone from a Java background). Struts was ok,
> > and was the framework that made java a viable web technology, but
> > webwork just feels nicer. (Ironically, "struts 2" is actually webwork
> > 2 - so they eventually worked that out for themselves).
> >
> > * I can write a web app that talks to a legacy database. Og gives me a
> > full ORM rather than requiring that I own the database. That opens up
> > a whole class of web apps that are simply not available to a stack
> > constrained to an active record pattern.
> >
> > For my money (about $0.02), this would be my priority for getting
> > nitro "out there":
> >
> > - Documentation, documentation, documentation. It doesn't have to be
> > clever or comprehensive. Just a solid walk-through of creating an
> > application. The answers are mostly there amongst the original videos,
> > the cheat sheets and the tutorials. It just needs shaking down and
> > presenting in a clear and consistent way. I would choose some
> > "typical" users  and target them. Initially target an experienced ruby
> > programmer writing their first web app in nitro. Then something like a
> > "nitro for rails developers" track.
> >
> > - Stability. (Funny enough, less important to me than being able to
> > write an app in the first place.) I don't mind if it has rough edges
> > as long as the core stuff mostly works, and the mailing list is
> > responsive to my stupidity. It's pre-1.0 after all.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/nitro-general/attachments/20071105/00f201a8/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Nitro-general mailing list