I'm going to write a service that will using amqp protocol, without http at all. I like hanami's paradigm of repository-entity-model-interactors and I wonder to use those in my project. Generating all that stuff by hand, sure, is boring.
So, I wonder to grab rake tasks. Looking into config/environment etc, ughhhh. What is the best method, shortly, to use those tools without hanami router and controllers? Or, it is all integrated tightly?
As I think for that moment, there are two ways:
a) To include only hanami-model into my Gemfile, then copy by hand every needed file from gem hanami.
b) To create hanami project and do not use rackup.
I'm disappointed.
Alternatively, you can add hanami as a development gem. That gives you access to the code generators. At the deploy stage, you don't bundle hanami, so the app will only have hanami-model and hanami-utils in production.
hello. If I understand you right, you want to use interactors only with models. Interactors you can use as a regular ruby library.
For model, you need to configure all this staff and load to memory. You can check the example from our playbook. Hope it'll be helpful for you
https://github.com/hanami/playbook/blob/master/development/bug_templates/model_psql.rb
Related
While developing JavaScript apps, I usually create an API app, totally separate from the UI app. For the API, I usually use Sinatra.
I'm developing a JavaScript app that will use a WebSocket service I build. I'd like to use Ruby (em-websocket for now) and ActiveModel for data models. I want to keep this really lightweight, like a Sinatra app is for a RESTful API.
It seems my WebSocket service will simply be a ruby script invoked via "ruby web_socket_service.rb". I'd like to be able to use various gems (like activerecord, capistrano, and nokogiri) with this WebSocket service. What's the most typical way of accomplishing this?
Would I be better off creating a standalone gem to contain my models and the WebSocket service script and then host my WebSocket service from that? Or maybe simply include the gems and models directly in the script via "gem 'name'? Or, is there some special library or framework commonly-used to tackle this?
Look at a Rails app. That's the approach I would take if your WebSocket service starts to grow towards a medium-sized app. I.e. bin, lib, Rakefile, and a Gemfile for your gems and bundler.
For smaller apps you can still use a Gemfile and bundler to manage the included gems. This locks gem versions so you won't have conflicts if you deploy to other servers. And then just put everything into one or two script files, similar to Sinatra.
Creating standalone gems is really only useful for libraries or application parts that are reusable across many applications. This doesn't sound like that sort of thing.
I am trying to see if I can create a simple website, like a blog, using only Ruby. No Rails or a database or outside web servers. I plan to store the data in a file for persistence.
I wanted to use TCPServer, CGI, and Net::HTTP.
Is there an easier way I can use?
There are a lot of moving parts when designing a website.
Depending on the purpose of the exercise, you might want to consider using a very simple web framework like Camping, Sinatra, or Ramaze. This is probably the best solution if you're trying to get a top level understanding of web programming because it only has exactly what you need (Camping is less than 4k!) and handles stuff like routing.
Building a web server is more an exercise in HTTP parsing. You might want to omit the framework and try to build something on top of Rake (an API for lots of popular web servers) and a simple web server like Webrick or Thin.
You could also try Espresso
It is easy to learn and fast to run.
And offers all the liberty you need for creation process.
Also it has no hidden "fees", everything is transparent.
I'm starting a new project and I have maybe three resources defined. Not a lot of code so far. (Rails 3.1)
But I'm interested in trying out DataMapper. I'm used to ActiveRecord (and actually enjoy it) but I'm always on the lookout for new things. Plus, my application uses Backbone.js but I don't believe that's relevant.
So how hard is it to switch out the ORM "mid-app" like this and do you think the learning curve to DM is that hard?
PS, there is a chance that I might be using other engines alongside my application. Such as MongoDB running along with Postgres. Will DM be at an advantage there?
To use Datamapper itself, there isn't much to it but it is some of the Rails niceties that require additional work (like the SQL execution times in "rails s") and there is also the rake tasks.
Check out dm-rails - They have a template that you use to provision the initial Rails project that sets it up with everything for Datamapper. You can also look through the source and see how it hooks everything. There is a small issue if you use database-backed session stores with Datamapper, which involves a monkey patch.
I prepare to develop one project, which has no UI. The project just need to interact with database, so is there any example for reference ？
Does your app have ties to a Rails-based app and need to read the Rails configuration files? Or, is it entirely stand-alone and have no Rails interaction?
ActiveRecord is OK for that, but if I don't need Rails compatibility I use Sequel. It's a great ORM that I find to be much more flexible.
If you need Rails compatibility and want to use ActiveRecord, look into using rails runner. From the docs:
runner runs Ruby code in the context of Rails non-interactively. For instance:
$ rails runner "Model.long_running_method"
Rails runner is for command-line apps that don't need the HTTPd server or user-interface of Rails. I use them for things like an app that runs daily to ftp files from a site for analysis. It has to write to the database, so it has access to all the models I've defined, but it never needs to present anything to the user since it is invisible to them.
I am working on a task that needs to checkout source from a github repositroy, and then modify some files from the checked out repository based on some existing configuration data that's coming from a separate call to a different web service as JSON. The changes to the checked out code are temporary and will not be pushed back to github.
Once the checked out source is processed and modified based upon the configuration data, I will create a compressed archive of the resulting source.
I just discovered Capistrano and it seems great for this entire process, although it has nothing to do with deployment. On the other hand, I could simply use plain Ruby to do the same stuff. Currently, I am weighing more on the side of using Capistrano with custom tasks.
So you can say that it's an app based on Capistrano itself, with local deployment. Does it sound like a sane approach? Should I write it in plain Ruby instead? Or maybe write parts of the application in pure Ruby, and connect the pieces with Capistrano. Any suggestion is welcome.
Sincerely recommend Thor (see Github) it's pure-ruby syntax tax framework like Rake (but like Capistrano has a lot of cruft for server cluster grouping and connection handling… Rake has a lot to do with more classical "Make" or build tasks)
Recommendation from me is a set of Thor tasks, using raw-net-ssh (cap is based on Net::SSH) where appropriate.
For the checking out I recommend you watch the "Amp" project… they're coming up with a consistent cross-scm way to do checkouts (but thats the least of your problems) - You can take a look here, but it's early days for them yet - http://github.com/michaeledgar/amp
Sources: (as the Capistrano maintainer, i'm planning on throwing out our own DSL to replace it with Thor since it makes a lot more sense )
As for me, I write things like these in a Rakefile, and then use a rake command to call them.
You can find that Rakefiles are similar to Capfiles, so rake is usually used to perform some local tasks, and cap for remote.