Forum: Ruby Sequel vs. RDBI vs. DBI

905b758ffd0109823fbea3650904ef7f?d=identicon&s=25 Jim Hranicky (Guest)
on 2013-03-02 02:45
(Received via mailing list)
So it looks like RDBI hasn't been touched in a while and DBI
appears dormant, so I've been looking at Sequel . I like what
I've seen so far and I'm just wondering if this would be
considered "the way to do database programming in ruby"
(if there is one) ?

I moved from DBI to RDBI a while back and would like to
stick with something that'll be around and supported
along with the language.

Thanks,

--
Jim Hranicky
IT Security Engineer
UF Information Technology
Office of Information Security and Compliance
Bfa670ef2303deb7dec5a8027367b30b?d=identicon&s=25 David Mullet (mully)
on 2013-03-03 14:02
Jim Hranicky wrote in post #1099800:
> So it looks like RDBI hasn't been touched in a while and DBI
> appears dormant, so I've been looking at Sequel . I like what
> I've seen so far and I'm just wondering if this would be
> considered "the way to do database programming in ruby"
> (if there is one) ?
>
> I moved from DBI to RDBI a while back and would like to
> stick with something that'll be around and supported
> along with the language.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Jim Hranicky
> IT Security Engineer
> UF Information Technology
> Office of Information Security and Compliance

I'm not prepared to state that Sequel is THE way to do database
programming in Ruby". But it's a solid choice and is continuously
updated. I use it daily in a variety of environments: SQL Server or
SQLite; desktop or server; MRI or JRuby.

David
4f26b34a72729f9543ba84c398dba2c2?d=identicon&s=25 D. Deryl Downey (ddd)
on 2013-03-03 17:20
(Received via mailing list)
I would really suggest using Sequel before (or instead of) ActiveRecord.
Its smaller, lighter, and (if you're used to sql) closer to the bone.

I found I had *serious* problems trying to understand Sequel's syntax
after using ActiveRecord, and the lack of #find* helpers like
ActiveRecord
has threw me for a loop.

As I started digging deeper into Sequel, and started throwing out
ActiveRecord it started getting a bit easier, but I do have to say that
working with Sequel was far harder than it had to be because of hitting
ActiveRecord first. I got spoiled with the easier syntax and fooled into
thinking it was the 'better' of the two. I got that totally wrong.
D702bb9bd075a9cef4cb98220f51031a?d=identicon&s=25 Bryan Powell (bryanp)
on 2013-03-04 16:32
(Received via mailing list)
+1 for Sequel. Use it in production with several apps and have
absolutely no complaints.

Bryan
449845e1d40373c8d09799e626b7969b?d=identicon&s=25 Joe Meirow (motownjoe)
on 2013-10-19 04:43
I really like Sequel compared to A/R, but just today I've hit a problem
that as near as I can tell is a problem with Sequel: It fails when
attempting to use transactions with MS-SQL Server (which sadly, is the
database I have to use).

I can use 'isql' from the Linux command line and do transactions with
SQL-Server just fine. I can use Sequel with transactions against
PostgreSQL, but Sequel and transactions against SQL-Server... no-uh-uh..

I'm very bummed about this because I really liked everything else I've
seen, but this is likely a deal-breaker for me.
449845e1d40373c8d09799e626b7969b?d=identicon&s=25 Joe Meirow (motownjoe)
on 2013-10-19 05:03
A happy retraction. I've found the source of my problem and now can "+1"
Sequel.

(FWIW, I was not setting the :db_type to 'mssql' in the connection)
F183bcc4176b308c9edabe79299e448f?d=identicon&s=25 Jeremy Evans (jeremyevans)
on 2013-10-23 17:13
Joe Meirow wrote in post #1124887:
> I really like Sequel compared to A/R, but just today I've hit a problem
> that as near as I can tell is a problem with Sequel: It fails when
> attempting to use transactions with MS-SQL Server (which sadly, is the
> database I have to use).
>
> I can use 'isql' from the Linux command line and do transactions with
> SQL-Server just fine. I can use Sequel with transactions against
> PostgreSQL, but Sequel and transactions against SQL-Server... no-uh-uh..
>
> I'm very bummed about this because I really liked everything else I've
> seen, but this is likely a deal-breaker for me.

Sequel fully supports transactions on most adapters that connect to
Microsoft SQL Server (tinytds, jdbc/sqlserver, jdbc/jtds, odbc).  I
think the only adapter that doesn't support them is ado with the default
provider, since that doesn't provide a consistent connection object (a
problem with win32ole, not with Sequel).

Thanks,
Jeremy
Please log in before posting. Registration is free and takes only a minute.
Existing account

NEW: Do you have a Google/GoogleMail, Yahoo or Facebook account? No registration required!
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account | Log in with Facebook account
No account? Register here.