My impression was that Rails was best for database-intensive
applications.  Is this true?  If Rails would indeed be appropriate for
a static website, then I might start to look into it.

Bill


On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:22:19 +0900, Bil Kleb <bil.kleb / nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hal Fulton wrote:
> > Bil Kleb wrote:
> >>
> >> This got me thinking: Does anyone want to put our project's site,
> >>
> >>  http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov
> >>
> >> on Rails?
> >
> > I'm wondering, is this a place where Rails could really shine?
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> I am thinking that at least the frozen-in-stone nav bar might
> be thawed, that a simple content insertion mechism for gallery
> items might be possible, that the RSS commit feed might be better
> integrated, or that the users manual might be auto-generated
> from some marked-up text.
> 
>  > I mean, it's mostly static HTML, isn't it?
> 
> It's all static HTML because that's really all we know or
> seem to have time for.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Bil Kleb, Hampton, Virginia
> 
>