[Nitro] The future of Nitro, Og and Raw
chris
As Dan North said a while back. Nitro is quite feature full and could really use some time to settle in with some bug fixes and a really solid release. I may end up taking a stab at this. Once I got some fixes into the Nitro and Raw dependancies and require statements. A simple "nitro hello;cd hello;nitro" works out of the box. I also converted the entire projects to "newgem" projects ( no offense intended ). The rake build tasks in there are excellent and "rake local_deploy" works perfectly. I have not touched Og, it seems to be pretty solid already. (side note: I think Og could stand on it's own two feet as well but if you want me to hold onto it for a while I will)
CHANGELOG:
Fixed Nitro and Raw gemspec dependancies
Fixed missing "require 'raw/controller'" in raw.rb
Replaced lib/facets.rb with a gemspec dependancy
Converted Nitro to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and rubyforge integration
Converted Raw to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and rubyforge integration
TODO:
I think I found some bugs in the admin part, which in my opinion is key to getting a new user's feet wet with nitro and og. I'd like to fix those.
Massive build up of examples in the rdocs
Move good examples to the prototype site produced by "nitro project_name"
Include more details in the actual prototype site code and startup files like app.rb and config/debug.rb
I do not plan to move away from using the current unit testing. However I will create new tests using rspec and rbehave. They are not mutually exclusive
Get "rake docs" working
Get "rake website_generate" working
With your permission, Trans and George I'm talking to you, I'll put some more effort into this and see what I can come up with. None of my changes will mess with the api, my entire goal is stability and usability. After presenting my initial work to you guys, we can decide where you want to go from there.
Before I forget, Robert Mela, if your out there. I'd love to get a hold of your cheatsheets for inclusion in the actual rdocs. Looks like your site has been reclaimed by the domain goblins.
Hope to hear from you,
Chris Scheper
Dan North
I'm probably the last guy in the room - I promised to switch off the lights :)
Have you seen ramaze? It seems inspired by the same values as nitro, and there is a lot of energy behind it at the moment. I would check with trans and george whether your time might be better spent helping out with ramaze (which already considers og a first class ORM along with sequel, datamapper and activerecord).
Just a thought, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who wanted to see a life after rails :)
Cheers,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Nitro-general mailing list
Nitro-...@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
trans
I'm still listening. After George went south on the project I haven't
had any real motivation to continue. But it's a real shame
considering. I think it would be great for you to pick up the torch
and run with it.
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, chris <prp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure who all is still listening but I have something to say.
>
> As Dan North said a while back. Nitro is quite feature full and could
> really use some time to settle in with some bug fixes and a really solid
> release. I may end up taking a stab at this. Once I got some fixes into
> the Nitro and Raw dependancies and require statements. A simple "nitro
> hello;cd hello;nitro" works out of the box. I also converted the entire
> projects to "newgem" projects ( no offense intended ).
If it works for you, that's fine. Since I stopped working on Nitro I
recrafted my whole build suite anyway.
But how does newgem help except to build a gem?
> The rake build tasks
> in there are excellent and "rake local_deploy" works perfectly. I have not
> touched Og, it seems to be pretty solid already. (side note: I think Og
> could stand on it's own two feet as well but if you want me to hold onto it
> for a while I will)
I separated Og into it's own project. See http://ogden.rubyforge.org.
There is a git repo. It is pretty much exactly what is in the current
Nitro repo. I figured splitting Og off on it's own was the first thing
to do in working toward a new stable release. Unfortunately the tests
were converted to RSpec just before all that (not by me), and they do
not fully pass and I have not been able to track down all the issues --
I wish we had the old unit tests instead.
The main plans I had for the future of Og were to make "enchanting"
explicit, and remove as much dynamic code injection as possible (there
is a lot of that in this lib). But a new solid release before all
that, at this point, would probably be best to help get a little fire
going under it.
> CHANGELOG:
>
> Fixed Nitro and Raw gemspec dependancies
> Fixed missing "require 'raw/controller'" in raw.rb
> Replaced lib/facets.rb with a gemspec dependancy
> Converted Nitro to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> rubyforge integration
> Converted Raw to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> rubyforge integration
>
> TODO:
>
> I think I found some bugs in the admin part, which in my opinion is key to
> getting a new user's feet wet with nitro and og. I'd like to fix those.
> Massive build up of examples in the rdocs
> Move good examples to the prototype site produced by "nitro project_name"
> Include more details in the actual prototype site code and startup files
> like app.rb and config/debug.rb
> I do not plan to move away from using the current unit testing. However I
> will create new tests using rspec and rbehave. They are not mutually
> exclusive
Ultimately it's your call, but I'd prefer not going the rspec and
rbehave route. There are much more important things to do. If you want
to move toward BDD, using minitest's mini/spec (now included in Ruby
1.9, btw) or Shoulda would be a much easier, more tempered step in
that direction.
> Get "rake docs" working
> Get "rake website_generate" working
>
> With your permission, Trans and George I'm talking to you, I'll put some
> more effort into this and see what I can come up with. None of my changes
> will mess with the api, my entire goal is stability and usability. After
> presenting my initial work to you guys, we can decide where you want to go
> from there.
That's more than considerate. Since the project has been down for the
count, I say, feel free to take her where you want. As you can tell
from my reply I'm still interested in seeing this project succeed and
am happy to help where as I can.
> Before I forget, Robert Mela, if your out there. I'd love to get a hold
> of your cheatsheets for inclusion in the actual rdocs. Looks like your site
> has been reclaimed by the domain goblins.
T.
James Britt
> Hi Chris.
>
> I'm probably the last guy in the room - I promised to switch off the lights
> :)
>
> values as nitro, and there is a lot of energy behind it at the moment. I
> would check with trans and george whether your time might be better spent
> helping out with ramaze (which already considers og a first class ORM along
> with sequel, datamapper and activerecord).
While Ramaze is clearly based off ideas in Nitro (if not Nitro itself),
I don't think it has quite the same approach to pipelining
transformations and filtering.
It would be well worth looking at the essential differences between
Ramaze and Nitro and considering if effort is better spent in adding
Nitro aspects to Ramaze (either directly or as some sort of plugin).
If that's not feasible, then having Nitro spring back to life would be
quite cool.
>
> Just a thought, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who wanted to see a life
> after rails :)
There's always been life before, during, and after Rails. Ruby has had
interesting Web development almost all along. It just rarely got the
attention it deserved.
--
James Britt
www.happycamperstudios.com - Wicked Cool Coding
www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
chris
I'll get into my philosophy and why I think nitro still has a better shot at becoming a world class framework later. For now lets just keep our eyes on getting a stable release out with a much better set of easy to find and working examples and docs.
Chris
chris
Hi Chris,
I'm still listening. After George went south on the project I haven't
had any real motivation to continue. But it's a real shame
considering. I think it would be great for you to pick up the torch
and run with it.
We'll see what happens but I'm going to try.
If it works for you, that's fine. Since I stopped working on Nitro I
On Oct 23, 11:10 am, chris <prp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure who all is still listening but I have something to say.
>
> As Dan North said a while back. Nitro is quite feature full and could
> really use some time to settle in with some bug fixes and a really solid
> release. I may end up taking a stab at this. Once I got some fixes into
> the Nitro and Raw dependancies and require statements. A simple "nitro
> hello;cd hello;nitro" works out of the box. I also converted the entire
> projects to "newgem" projects ( no offense intended ).
recrafted my whole build suite anyway.
But how does newgem help except to build a gem?
It's not just the gem build it has direct rake tasks to upload a built gem directly to rubyforge and much more. Rake is a tool I can't live without. I'm really surprised it wasn't used in the darcs repo source.
I separated Og into it's own project. See http://ogden.rubyforge.org.
> The rake build tasks
> in there are excellent and "rake local_deploy" works perfectly. I have not
> touched Og, it seems to be pretty solid already. (side note: I think Og
> could stand on it's own two feet as well but if you want me to hold onto it
> for a while I will)
There is a git repo. It is pretty much exactly what is in the current
Nitro repo. I figured splitting Og off on it's own was the first thing
to do in working toward a new stable release. Unfortunately the tests
were converted to RSpec just before all that (not by me), and they do
not fully pass and I have not been able to track down all the issues --
I wish we had the old unit tests instead.
As I'm poking around I'll see what I can do about finding those tests along the way.
The main plans I had for the future of Og were to make "enchanting"
explicit, and remove as much dynamic code injection as possible (there
is a lot of that in this lib). But a new solid release before all
that, at this point, would probably be best to help get a little fire
going under it.
Hopefully my time investment in nitro will help out the og movement as well. I still think it outshines activerecord by leaps and bounds.
Ultimately it's your call, but I'd prefer not going the rspec and
> CHANGELOG:
>
> Fixed Nitro and Raw gemspec dependancies
> Fixed missing "require 'raw/controller'" in raw.rb
> Replaced lib/facets.rb with a gemspec dependancy
> Converted Nitro to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> rubyforge integration
> Converted Raw to a newgem project to capitalize on the rake tasks and
> rubyforge integration
>
> TODO:
>
> I think I found some bugs in the admin part, which in my opinion is key to
> getting a new user's feet wet with nitro and og. I'd like to fix those.
> Massive build up of examples in the rdocs
> Move good examples to the prototype site produced by "nitro project_name"
> Include more details in the actual prototype site code and startup files
> like app.rb and config/debug.rb
> I do not plan to move away from using the current unit testing. However I
> will create new tests using rspec and rbehave. They are not mutually
> exclusive
rbehave route. There are much more important things to do. If you want
to move toward BDD, using minitest's mini/spec (now included in Ruby
1.9, btw) or Shoulda would be a much easier, more tempered step in
that direction.
Going the rspec and rbehave route is something which I have proven to myself helps me write really solid code. Not necessary, just what helps me work better. I will definitely look into mini and shoulda, thanks for the suggestions.
That's more than considerate. Since the project has been down for the
> Get "rake docs" working
> Get "rake website_generate" working
>
> With your permission, Trans and George I'm talking to you, I'll put some
> more effort into this and see what I can come up with. None of my changes
> will mess with the api, my entire goal is stability and usability. After
> presenting my initial work to you guys, we can decide where you want to go
> from there.
count, I say, feel free to take her where you want. As you can tell
from my reply I'm still interested in seeing this project succeed and
am happy to help where as I can.
Well, thank you for your support and I'll keep updating the mailing list as I go along. I'll keep my requests for major effort on your part to an minimum. However getting access to rubyforge may be necessary in the next few weeks.
chris
Dan North wrote:
Hi Chris.Have you seen ramaze <http://ramaze.net>? It seems inspired by the same
I'm probably the last guy in the room - I promised to switch off the lights
:)
values as nitro, and there is a lot of energy behind it at the moment. I
would check with trans and george whether your time might be better spent
helping out with ramaze (which already considers og a first class ORM along
with sequel, datamapper and activerecord).
While Ramaze is clearly based off ideas in Nitro (if not Nitro itself), I don't think it has quite the same approach to pipelining transformations and filtering.
It would be well worth looking at the essential differences between Ramaze and Nitro and considering if effort is better spent in adding Nitro aspects to Ramaze (either directly or as some sort of plugin).
If that's not feasible, then having Nitro spring back to life would be quite cool.
The core mission of what I'm shooting for with nitro will be published here by the end of next week. I will also be bringing in some short term goals, long term goals and a roadmap for nitro. I hope this will clear up the ramaze v/s nitro debate and/or create some discussion as to what options we have. If ramaze meets up to what I'm looking for, maybe I will let nitro go back to sleep.
Georgios Moschovitis
nice to see a post on this list after all this time ;-)
I have no problem with your proposal, it's OK by me.
Btw, in the last few months I have created a brand new web (or should I say REST) framework for my own use. It's completely different to the old Nitro (and frameworks like Rails/Merb). I am trying to make it as simple and standards compliant as possible. The plan is to eventually write some docs and release it as open source, but we 'll see about that. At the moment the server side logic is written in Ruby, but I am thinking about switching to server side javascript in the future. I am extremely pleased with what I have so far ;-) ;-)
An early version of this framework powers my new blog: www.gmosx.com, check this out...
regards,
-g.
_______________________________________________
Nitro-general mailing list
Nitro-...@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
--
gmosx.com
chris
I'll be sure to check it's out.
-Chris
Dan North
Cheers,
Dan
Georgios Moschovitis
But I want to try it out in a few more internal projects to make sure the design is valid.
But surely it is not for everyone.
-g.
I'd be very keen to see a decent REST implementation in ruby.
Cheers,
Dan
--
gmosx.com
James Britt
> I'd be very keen to see a decent REST implementation in ruby.
Isn't that what the Sinatra Web thing claims?
James