Looking for +1 on patch to make default database more Windows-friendly

The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was a
great idea.
But it's far less common for Windows users to even know
about sqlite3
than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can present an
unpleasant
experience for new users.

I've created a patch which modifies the app generator to use
sqlite3
if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the default
database
will revert back to MySQL.

http://dev.ru
byonrails.org/ticket/10569

+1 anybody?

Thanks!
Jeff
softiesonrails.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-coregooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I disagree with that.  I don't know anyone who uses SQL
Server unless
they have to (especially with Rails).  Installing mySQL is
as simple
as downloading the installer and running it.

I think the sqlite default makes sense; I would guess the
majority of
Rails developers are probably on some sort of *nix or a
derivative, so
this isn't much of an issue.

--Jerem

On Dec 19, 2007 11:24 PM, Lawrence Pit <lawrence.pitgmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Jeff,
>
>  Sorry, don't like this.
>
>  1) Defaults should be constant imho, not variable.
>
>  2) I'd suggest mySQL is just as uncommon as sqlite3 on
Windows machines.
> Installing mySQL takes more effort and knowledge than
installing sqlite3. If
> you want a default on a Windows machine I'd think SQL
Server 2005 would be
> the choice, not mySQL.
>
>  3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I'd say, let's
be a fascist all the
> way: sqlite3. period.
>
>  4) Having one default for all systems means: less code
(all 3 lines of
> those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
>
>  I'm for mislav's suggestion that this is more a matter
of documentation.
>
>  And perhaps a user friendly bail message when things
bomb (if that isn't
> given already)
>
>
>
>  Regards,
>  Lawrence
>
>
>
>
>  The choice to use sqlite3 as the default database was
a great idea.
> But it's far less common for Windows users to even know
about sqlite3
> than MySQL. So right out of the gate this can present
an unpleasant
> experience for new users.
>
> I've created a patch which modifies the app generator
to use sqlite3
> if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found. If not, the
default database
> will revert back to MySQL.
>
> http://dev.ru
byonrails.org/ticket/10569
>
> +1 anybody?
>
> Thanks!
> Jeff
> softiesonrails.com
>
>
>
>
>
>  >
>



-- 
http://www.jeremymcana
lly.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.c
om/mcanally/

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humbl
elittlerubybook.com/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.
com/
http://www.rubyinpract
ice.com/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-coregooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, Lawrence Pit <lawrence....gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Sorry, don't like this.
>
> 1) Defaults should be constant imho, not variable.

I generally agree, but I think a reasonable degrade approach
is
necessary here.

> 2) I'd suggest mySQL is just as uncommon as sqlite3 on
Windows machines.
> Installing mySQL takes more effort and knowledge than
installing
> sqlite3. If you want a default on a Windows machine I'd
think SQL Server
> 2005 would be the choice, not mySQL.

I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was pulled from
core in
2.0, I don't think it would be good to make it the default
in any
scenario.  Of all of the open-source databases that Rails
supports out
of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least have heard of
MySQL and
a little googling finds wide acceptance among big-name
companies.  I
think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all.

The scenario I'm trying to solve is this:

1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step of trying
out Rails.
2. She picks up any Rails book on the market, finds out she
needs to
install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer, and does a
gem install
rails
3. She types "rails hello_world" and creates one
model
4. Big Problems

> 3) A default is arbitrary anyways, so I'd say, let's be
a fascist all
> the way: sqlite3. period.
>
> 4) Having one default for all systems means: less code
(all 3 lines of
> those ;), less documentation, less confusion.
>
> I'm for mislav's suggestion that this is more a matter
of documentation.
>
> And perhaps a user friendly bail message when things
bomb (if that isn't
> given already)

Perhaps I should change the --help text to read,
"Default: sqlite3 (or
MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ?  That would be
fine with me.


> Regards,
> Lawrence> The choice to use sqlite3 as the default
database was a great idea.
> > But it's far less common for Windows users to even
know about sqlite3
> > than MySQL.  So right out of the gate this can
present an unpleasant
> > experience for new users.
>
> > I've created a patch which modifies the app
generator to use sqlite3
> > if the sqlite3-ruby gem can be found.  If not, the
default database
> > will revert back to MySQL.
>
> >http://dev.ru
byonrails.org/ticket/10569
>
> > +1 anybody?
>
> > Thanks!
> > Jeff
> > softiesonrails.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-coregooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

For what it's worth, I fully agree with Scott. I'd prefer to
stick to
one default database. Sqlite is really easy to install on
windows
(easier than MySQL) and generating a MySQL based rails app,
really
isn't that hard.

My suggestion: let's stick to sqlite for a little while, if
that's
really a problem we can always re evaluate the situation
later on.

-Matt

On Dec 20, 12:24 pm, "Scott Bronson"
<bron...rinspin.com> wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Jeff <cohen.j...gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would agree with that, but since SQLServer was
pulled from core in
> > 2.0, I don't think it would be good to make it the
default in any
> > scenario
>
> Agree 100%.
>
> Of all of the open-source databases that Rails supports
out
>
> > of the box in 2.0, Windows users will at least
have heard of MySQL and
> > a little googling finds wide acceptance among
big-name companies.  I
> > think SQLLite, however, is hardly known at all.
>
> One way of fixing the popularity problem is to use just
sqlite in the
> default install.  A lot of Windows developers could
well discover that
> sqlite is easier to use (no need to monkey with admin
interfaces and
> permissions; rake db:create just works) and every bit
as good for their
> needs as mysql.  Personally, I use sqlite for
development and mysql for
> production.  It's a great setup.  I'm surprised I
didn't try sqlite until
> Rails 2.0 suggested it.
>
> The scenario I'm trying to solve is this:
>
>
>
> > 1. Windows developer wants to take the brave step
of trying out Rails.
> > 2. She picks up any Rails book on the market,
finds out she needs to
> > install MySQL and the Ruby One-Click Installer,
and does a gem install
> > rails
> > 3. She types "rails hello_world" and
creates one model
> > 4. Big Problems
>
> Every book I've seen starts with setting up
database.yaml.  You omit that
> step and then worry that the user's app won't work. 
Well, if you omit that
> step with Rails 1.2, your app will have Big Problems
too!  (I think you're
> overstating your case a wee bit).
>
> There will also be Big Problems when the user tries to
use pagination or
> list examples...  or the functional test examples shown
in the book... etc.
> I don't think anybody expects a book on Rails 1.0 is
going to be fully
> compatible with Rails 2.0.
>
> Perhaps I should change the --help text to read,
"Default: sqlite3 (or
>
> > MySQL if sqlite3 gem is not found)." ?  That
would be fine with me.
>
> That's still arbitrarily modifying the defaults isn't
it?  Seems to me like
> this will cause more trouble than it solves.
>
> I really don't think Windows users are as clueless as
you make them out to
> be.  The majority of them anyway.  ;)
>
>     - Scott
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-coregooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:52:22 -0500, Steven A Bristol wrote:

>> I'm constantly surprised by the number of Rails
developers still using
>> Windows.
>>
> 
> me too.

Yeah, shocking that there are still some people using the OS
that has 90%
of the desktop market share... 

FWIW, I have three Mac laptops.  But for ergonomics, I need
to work at a
desktop, and there are still a decent number of Windows apps
I prefer to
their Mac equivalents.  Only in the past year have Parallels
and VM Fusion
(and Adobe CS3 native!) made it really feasible for us
hard-core Windows
users to consider switching without starting from scratch. 
Personally,
I've promised myself an 8-core Mac Pro Penryn this January,
assuming the
rumors are true.

(Hopefully this won't start a platform war; I just wanted to
remind people
that developers with Windows desktops do exist, despite what
you may see at
RailsConf.)

That said, building Ruby-plus-gems from scratch is so
difficult and
error-prone on Windows right now that *anyone* trying Rails
is going to be
using the One-Click Installer or Instant Rails or something
like that.  

So if they were to start packaging SQLite (and maybe they
already do), that
could solve the problem without having differing Rails
defaults.  Honestly,
I don't think MySQL has that much better mindshare on
Windows.  Either
you're involved in open source, in which case you know about
MySQL and
Postgres and SQLite, or you're not, in which case you know
about MS Access
and Jet and SQL Server and whatever Microsoft's latest
lite-desktop-SQL
engine is called.

Better to have one default everywhere.

-- 
Jay Levitt                |
Boston, MA                | My character doesn't like it
when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm         |
- Kristoffer 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-coregooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---