Re: Ruby On Rails on the iSeries

["albartell" <albartell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that is the direction I am going more and more.  Just develop my own
libraries for what I need but keep most things in raw form.  Otherwise you
have to wait for the next version of the framework to catch up to what is
currently going on in the web world (i.e. how long will it be till AJAX is
adequately implemented in the frameworks? - by adequately I mean it isn't a
pain in the butt to work with and isn't a pain to work around in case there
are areas that just don't fit in the frameworks box) 

This past month we have been contracted to do some RPG CGI development
(CGIDEV20 and I am kinda enjoying it because I don't have to mess around
with MySQL/Hibernate and I don't have to deal with the mess of framework
"events" that are supposed to help me but often times cause just as much
trouble.

Good points Mike.

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Eovino
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Ruby On Rails on the iSeries

> Anyways, my biggest concern with Rails is if it ponies up when I need 
> to write a more complex application.  I would rather not have to do 
> trial and error to find that out because right now I am "framework 
> fried" after trying both JSF and Tapestry and finding they both caused 
> just as many headaches as the time I was expecting to save.

For what it's worth, none of my green-haired kids (young Java experts) are
big fans of frameworks.  From their experiences, frameworks are great for
simple apps, but you wind up fighting the framework for more complex apps.
At their recommendation, we do plain-old Model 2 JSP, and we keep scripting
in JSPs to an absolute minimum.  They'd rather write HTML in the servlet and
pass it along to the JSP than do Java in their JSPs.  Seems reasonable to
me.

Mike E.