Comments on: Rhino on Rails

By: Phone

Phone — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:04:24 +0000

How much do you have to port?

By: replicahandbags

replicahandbags — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:53:00 +0000

amzing blog,cheers

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:18:09 +0000

In reference to the ‘ActiveFoo’ I know he mentioned using Hibernate instead of porting the whole ActiveRecord over. I really really love the whole idea of using JS/Rhino, having access to the Java framework (lots of libraries etc) would be nice.

By: Mark Holton

Mark Holton — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:05:17 +0000

…this has my interest, definitely, no matter what name they use. The efficiency factor in Rails is undeniable, and to have a port that runs on the JVM would certainly create some adopters. Just hearing about this today via Steve’s blog and your post, I have to check it out.

By: Joe DEER

Joe DEER — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:16:12 +0000

OK, so if this is not really Rails, why not use Phobos? Anything new?

By: Charles Oliver Nutter

Charles Oliver Nutter — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:22:36 +0000

We mustn’t forget the lesson of “Groovy on Rails”. David made it quite clear he wasn’t cool with a port being called Rails for a simple reason: it isn’t Rails. He requested the Grails guys change the name, and they did so. JRuby on Rails is ok because it actually is the same code. Steve’s port is almost certainly very cool (I missed his talk due to another I wanted to see, though I caught him for a few minutes afterwards), but it’s not Rails.