Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mikeal.rogers@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=g561OPz7W21StEyBtQD/G2kqxcN525iEuVUSLcdwGIuvq8xf5HSi9IB5IJjLRM0FRg
         buVEwtDnqoVI7BB4AO1CxykpFaLq77k6kWZt4nOpEnm2ZlmH0LlG7+d2BkWxvaTbFgkk
         CdVqjAm0p5cJ7XJ8foUrOzT1HXx9DfSPT6yAg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimk=8St=51dp_uzwMucbquJoiZHtGU6=NeA9kVe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <458FFB18-243E-4ECC-8B6F-9E54CE982AD6@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimk=8St=51dp_uzwMucbquJoiZHtGU6=NeA9kVe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=aFWz-9tHkhkFLV5COeu07dCh4gAdz2jwURyEH@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Ruby libraries for CouchDB?
From: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0003255734865afa4f048ccaaddf

--0003255734865afa4f048ccaaddf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here is the blog post I did.

http://www.mikealrogers.com/2010/08/abstracting-couchdb/

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com>wrot=
e:

> I'll try to respond to each of these in a new blog post because a lot of
> what you say isn't specific to Ruby.
>
> Some of the underlying reasons for your complaints, which I think are
> valid, are actually due to some of the better parts of CouchDB being too
> easy :)
>
> -Mikeal
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Karel Mina=C5=99=C3=ADk <karel.minarik@g=
mail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> during the last year, I have been working on and off on couple of Ruby
>> contracts/projects using CouchDB as the primary database.
>>
>> Encountering Couch was probably the _most_ joyful experience in the
>> "developer" part of my life, during that year, *period*.
>>
>> _Working_ with Couch in Ruby/Rails apps was _highly frustrating_
>> experience during that time.
>>
>> I have summarized some of the issues I had/have in the following gist:
>>
>> --> http://gist.github.com/503660
>>
>> The points include "too many gems", "too many layers", "lack of
>> modularization" and "talking to the rest of Ruby world". I've put them i=
n
>> the gist and not on this list mainly because I don't know if all people
>> interested are subscribed to this list. I welcome any feedback here, but
>> _rather_ in comments to the gist.
>>
>> One thing I'd propose is some virtual (or real) get together of authors =
of
>> various Ruby gems for Couch to consider if there's not some common groun=
d,
>> and if the features of different libraries could not be catered in a
>> radically smaller number of gems.
>>
>> Regarding the (natural) "one size does not fit all" argument: the
>> situation reminds of the state of i18n in Ruby on Rails two years ago. T=
here
>> were number of options for providing the functionality, because "everybo=
dy
>> has different needs". This has put a really _big_ strain on developers,
>> forcing them to research and evaluate all the options and make the choic=
es.
>> In the end, thanks to coordinated effort, common ground was found and a
>> modular, but "out of the box" usable solution was created:
>> http://github.com/svenfuchs/i18n.
>>
>> I think adoption rate, and more importantly _joy_, of using Couch in Rub=
y
>> would benefit from something similar.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Karel
>>
>> --
>> www.karmi.cz
>>
>>
>

--0003255734865afa4f048ccaaddf--