Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

lucaguidi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#71

Post by kureikain »

jamesbritt wrote: post #68
kureikain wrote: post #2

Thank for great fw. I'm by no mean a Ruby expert but finding Sinatra is so simple to create complex apps, and Rails is so complex atm to pick up. I'm making slowly progress in Rails and always not sure if I done thing correctly in Rails way. Lotus seems small enough, and good enouh, balance between Sinatra and Rails for me. Keep up the good work. Thanks.

balance between Sinatra and Rails for me. Ramaze is that sweet-spot for me. http://ramaze.net

Thank you for such a great link. It is also well-maintain. last commit was 2 months ago. Its base is small enough to understand for me too. I like to understand more Ruby by reading the code. However, Rails was so big to me. Thanks again.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#72

Post by kureikain »

liveoneggs wrote: post #11
kureikain wrote: post #2

Thank for great fw. I'm by no mean a Ruby expert but finding Sinatra is so simple to create complex apps, and Rails is so complex atm to pick up. I'm making slowly progress in Rails and always not sure if I done thing correctly in Rails way. Lotus seems small enough, and good enouh, balance between Sinatra and Rails for me. Keep up the good work. Thanks.

http://www.padrinorb.com/ check it out

This is so cool. Built on top of Sinatra. So I can consider it like chaplin to backbone, right? It creates an architecture on top of original framework.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

tinco wrote: post #52
gkop wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lotus::Model apparently depends on https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel , which has been widely used in production similarly to DataMapper.

It seems you are right, my apologies, I clearly hadn't read deep enough. Still, Sequel is just an SQL abstraction. DataMapper is exactly what Lotus::Model is, a full model abstraction over databases, regardless of the querying language. Some years ago I even implemented an XQuery querying backend for DataMapper, it was not much work at all, at a time where AR still had SQL code all through the base and Sequel was jus…

> It seems you are right, my apologies, I clearly hadn't read deep enough. Still, Sequel is just an SQL abstraction. DataMapper is exactly what Lotus::Model is, a full model abstraction over databases, regardless of the querying language.

AFAICT from reading the Sequel code (and especially the code for the existing adapters), there's no real hard dependency on SQL (since the adapter both generates and applies the query string), though there is a dependency on being able to map back and forth to SQL-like operations.

It shouldn't be impossible to write a driver for a non-SQL backend for Sequel, though it seems like it would be progressively harder the farther from the assumptions common to SQL its operation was.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#76

Post by matdes »

SeanLuke wrote: post #74

This is a textbook example trademark infringement. IBM will not be humored.

uhhhhhh, I don't know if that's true.

Lotus was never a ruby web application framework. Guess Apple's going to have to change the name of Swift because of that other programming language, amirite?

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#77

Post by matdes »

CarlHoerberg wrote: post #64
krasnoukhov wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like you're missing the point. As an example, I've built the adapter for DynamoDB[1] so you can throw sequel out in matter of minutes even for existing app, and most likely without any code change. [1] https://github.com/krasnoukhov/lotus-dynamodb

No, if I choose Sequel ( http://sequel.jeremyevans.net ) I want to use all the power it gives me, not some lowest common denominator.. Also not all projects needs models, you know, there's other data access patterns..

the concept of a model is not at all tied to a data access pattern unless you subscribe to model = ActiveRecord::Base inheritor in the Rails world.

Model is a well-defined term in the domain-driven design world, as in "Domain Model"

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#79

Post by JonnieCache »

gkop wrote: post #51
tinco wrote: post #50

Weird, I get the idea of defining a new web framework API, but why would you build everything from scratch? There's loads of very good open source code out there. Why not fork DataMapper for Lotus::Model for example? Now you have some dodgy hand rolled library that's probably not seen enough eyes to be really production proof.

Lotus::Model apparently depends on https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel , which has been widely used in production similarly to DataMapper.

Sequel, (and Sequel::Model) is an absolute peach. The best ORM I've ever used.

EDIT: Lotus::Model barely seems to use Sequel. Maybe I missed it...

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#80

Post by vidarh »

DogeDogeDoge wrote: post #28

How many of this type of frameworks we had. Padrino was there to fix something but achieved nothing. It is better to focus on rails and fixing rails rather than start a framework for everything. Few doge years ago sinatra was faster than rails, today... not so obvious and still offering much smaller set of functionality.

> It is better to focus on rails and fixing rails

For many of us "fixing Rails" is easiest achieved by starting from scratch.

> and still offering much smaller set of functionality.

... and that is why I prefer Sinatra to Rails.

Post reply on HN