On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:58:30 +0900,
Michael Neumann <mneumann / ntecs.de> wrote:
>
> Sure, Wee is some steps away from production quality, just because 
> important parts have to be reworked (Session, Application classes, which 
> are not in the core ;-)). Nevertheless, those are only a few hundred 
> lines of code...

The fewer, the better!

>
> BTW, would be nice to hear why you did choose IOWA and not Rails. Simply 
> because you did not tried it, or for some other reasons... I'm just 
> curious ;-)

errm... mainly gut feeling, I guess. There are some default settings
with Rails and its database backend which I don't like. I know that
I can override them, but still ... OTOH, Kansas as Iowa's preferred
backend (I wonder how that sounds to native speaker from Kansas ...)
is both very clever and very small.

I have to admit that I haven't followed the frequent announcement on
Rails improvements thoroughly, but just from the looks, Iowa seemed
easier to setup with it's own Webrick-based HTTP-server and indeed
proved to be absolutely no hassle thanks to the efforts of the rpa
packagers. Moving things between my development machine and the
production server is easy, too, as I just scp a tarball and change
the port webrick listens on.

I'm growing my pages in a single HTML file until they do what they
need. Then I improve code structure until changes in application logic
(mostly) won't influence the HTML part any more. Finally I split the
..iwa part off and refactor the code with the existing base. I will
repeat this until the project is finished.

Back to my gut feeling, which I can now summarize into a single
sentence: I think that Iowa makes things simple, but not too simple.

> Hope at that time, Wee is in a much better shape.

Wee will be, even if we will be not :-)

s.