# Rails with no direct database access? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [December 17, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-with-no-direct-database-access/50515 "2005-12-17T09:20:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jason_DiCioccio)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-with-no-direct-database-access/50515/1 "2005-12-17T09:20:46Z")
Hello all, I’m having a bit of an internal conflict here. I have a web application that I need to write (for myself). Fine, right? Well, this site is for a DNS service that has a client interface for client APIs to access. I’d like to have all application requests and data updates/retrieval to go through this interface instead of a database. Should I even use Rails for something like this? Or is using Rails for something without an RDMS not worth it? Is replacing or subclassing ActiveRecord (which I heard is what I’d be doing) very time consuming? Worth it? I’d like to use Rails, but if this architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend? Thanks in advance! Jason DiCioccio ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jason_DiCioccio)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-with-no-direct-database-access/50515/2 "2005-12-19T06:45:14Z")
I wrote a small (internal) application that retrieved data in XML format from another application. I had no database involved. Even then, Ruby and Rails were a good fit for this nice little hack. The method\_missing method is your friend here. Fred On 12/17/05, Jason DiCioccio [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other > ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend? > > Thanks in advance! > Jason DiCioccio > > * * * > > Rails mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) – Frederic J. removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jason_DiCioccio)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-with-no-direct-database-access/50515/3 "2005-12-19T16:23:48Z")
Jason DiCioccio wrote: > architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other > ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend? Why not subclass activerecord or make a custom database connector? That way you get ActiveRecord/Rails goodness while still using the custom API that you want. I’m a rails newbie, but I suspect that subclassing ActiveRecord may be the better approach. What say the rails gurus? Besides, if you wrap your custom api in an existing Rails API,then you can reuse it in another app or switch your data store without much fuss. Abstraction is a good thing. Sincerely, Jason ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jason\_DiCioccio](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jason_DiCioccio)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rails-with-no-direct-database-access/50515/4 "2005-12-19T20:21:44Z")
On Dec 17, 2005, at 12:18 AM, Jason DiCioccio wrote: > architecture is not feasable using Rails, then are there any other > ruby frameworks that anyone could recommend? > > Thanks in advance! > Jason DiCioccio > > * * * > > Rails mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) ``` I think you will find that rails is perfect for this sort of thing. ``` Rails does not force you to use ActiveRecord. So you can make your models howerver you want and still get to use rails controllers/views and routing. I don’t think you will want to subclass activerecord though. just write your own custom model classes. Cheers- -Ezra Z. Yakima Herald-Republic WebMaster [http://yakimaherald.com](http://yakimaherald.com) 509-577-7732 removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid