on links

links
© Eric Jusino

When people think about links, with regard to tying together information on the web, the usual thoughts are of URLs. Either absolute URLs, or a URL relative to some base (either implicitly the URL of the resource that contains the link, or explicitly via some kind of xml:base-like annotation).

But I wrestle with this.

Here's one issue. Let's say I have multiple representations of my resources available; today you see this typically as services exposing data as either JSON or XML. If that representation includes a link to other data that can be exposed as either JSON or XML, do you express that link as some kind of "platonic URL"? Or if you are doing content-negotiation via 'file name extension' sort of processing, does your JSON link point to a .json URL, but your XML link point to a .xml URL?

See a discussion in the JSR 311 mailing list for some thoughts on this; I stole the term "platonic URL" from this discussion.

The godfather had something interesting to say in a recent presentation. In "The Rest of REST", on slide 22, Roy Fielding writes:

Hypertext does not need to be HTML on a browser
- machines can follow links when they understand the data format and relationship types

Where's the URL? Perhaps tying links to URLs is a constraint we can relax. Consider, as a complementary alternative, that just a piece of data could be considered a link.

Here's an example: let's say I have a banking system with a resource representing a person, that has a set of accounts associated with it. I might typically represent the location of the account resources as a URL. But if I happen to know, a priori, the layout of the URLs, I could just provide an account number (assuming that's the key). With the account number, and knowledge of how to construct a URL to an account given that information (and perhaps MORE information), the URL to the account can easily be constructed.

The up-side is that the server doesn't have to calculate the URL, if all they have is the account number. They just provide the account number. The notion of content-type-specific URLs goes away; there is only the account number. The resources on the server can be a bit more independent of themselves; they don't have to know where the resource actually resides, just to generate the URL.

Code-wise, on the server, this is nice. There's always some kind of translation step on the server that's pulling your URLs apart, figuring out what kind of resource you're going after, and then invoking some code to process the request. "Routing". For that code to also know how to generate URLs going back to other resources, means the code needs the reverse information.

The down-side, of course, is that you can't use a dumb client anymore; your client now needs to know things like how to get to an account given just an account number.

And just generally, why put more work on the client, when you can do it on the server? Well, server performance is something we're always trying to optimize - why NOT foist the work back to the client?

But let's also keep in mind that the Web 2.0 apps we know and love today aren't dumb clients. There's user-land code running there in your browser. Typically provided by the same server that's providing your resources in the first place. ie, JavaScript.

I realize that's a bad example for me to use; me being the guy who thinks browsers are a relatively terrible application client, but what the heck; that's the way things are today.

For folks who just want the data, and not the client code, because they have their own client code, well, they'll need some kind of description of how everything's laid out; the data within a resource representation, and the locations of the resources themselves. But the server already knows all that information, and could easily provide it in one of several formats (human- and machine-readable).

As an proof point of all of this, consider Google Maps. Think about how the map tiles are being downloaded, and how they might be being referenced as "links". Do you think that when Google Maps first displays a page, all the map tiles for that first map view are sent down as URLs? Think about what happens when you scroll the map area, and new tiles need to be downloaded. Does the client send a request to the server asking for the URLs for the new tiles? Or maybe those URLs were even sent down as part of the original request.

All rhetorical questions, for me anyway. I took a quick look at the JavaScript for Google Maps in FireBug, and realized I've already debugged enough obfuscated code for a few lifetimes. Probably a TOS violation to do that anyway. Sigh. I'll leave that exercise to younger pups. But ... what would you do?

For Google maps, it's easy to imagine programmatically generating the list of tiles based on location, map zoom level, and map window size. Assuming the tiles are all accessible via URLs that include location and zoom level somewhere in the URL. In that case, the client code for calculating the URLS of the tiles needed is just a math problem. Why make it more complex than that?

I think there are problem domains where dealing with 'links' as just data, instead of explicit URLs make sense, as outlined with Google Maps. Remember what Roy wrote in his presentation: "machines can follow links when they understand the data format and relationship types". Of course, there's plenty of good reason to use continue to use URLs for links as well, especially with dumb-ish clients.

the envelope, please

Clouds envelope the landscape
© carol mitchell

Yaron Goland posted a funny Star Wars -flavored story on jamming square pegs in round holes with Atom. There's a great conversation in the comments in Sam Ruby's reply.

I think it's fair to say there's a tension here; on the one hand, there's no need to wrap your data in Atom or protocols in APP if you don't need to - that's just more stuff you have to deal with. On the other hand, if Atom and APP support becomes ubiquitous, why not take advantage of some of that infrastructure; otherwise, you may find yourself reinventing wheels.

I can certainly feel Yaron's point of "I'm running into numerous people who think that if you just sprinkle some magic ATOM pixie dust on something then it suddenly becomes a standard and is interoperable." I'm seeing this a lot now too. Worrisome. Even more so now that more and more people are familiar with the concept of feeds, but don't understand the actual technology. I've seen people describe things as if feeds were being pushed to the client, for instance, instead of being pulled from the server.

One thing that bugs me is the potentially extraneous bits in feeds / entries that are actually required: atom:name, atom:title, and atom:summary. James Snell is right; it's simple enough to boilerplate these when needed. But to me, there's enough beauty in Atom and APP, to really make it reusable across a wide variety of problem domains, that these seem like warts.

Another thorn in my side is the notion of two ways of providing the content of an item. atom:content with embedded content, or linked to with the src attribute. The linked-to style is needed, clearly, for binary resources, like image files. But it's a complication; it would clearly be easier to have just one way to do it, and that would of course have to be the linked-to style.

The picture in my mind is that Atom becomes something like ls; just get me the list of the 'things' in the collection, and some of their metadata. I'll get the 'things' separately, if I even ever need them. Works for operating systems.

Of course, the tradeoff there is that there are big performance gains to be had by including your content IN the feed itself, with the embedded style; primarily in reducing the number of round-trips between client and server from 1 + # of resources, to 1. It doesn't help that our current web client of choice, the web browser, doesn't provide programmatic control over it's own cache of HTTP requests. Maybe if it did, the linked-to style would be less of a performance issue.

I suspect I'm splitting hairs to some extent; one of my many vices. I'm keeping an open mind; I'm glad people are actually playing with using Atom / APP as an application-level envelope / protocol. It's certainly worth the effort to try. There's plenty to learn here, and we're starting to have some nice infrastructure here to help us along, and the more people play, the more infrastructure we'll get, and ...

web and rest punditry

Interesting web designs
© Ami Shah

• In "Google Map 'Documents'", Stefan Tilkov notes:

  In a comment, Patrick Mueller asks whether I'd consider Google Maps "document-oriented".

  Given that I can say that this is where I live and this is where I work I'd claim it's document-oriented enough for me :-)

  Stefan is referring to a comment discussion in his blog post on Lively. How we got from Lively to whether Google Maps is "document-oriented" ... well, read the original post and the comments.

  w/r/t "document oriented", the term is used on the Lively page, but I think Stefan is misinterpreting it. I can only infer from Stefan's post that he believes a web application is "document oriented" if you can generate a URL to somewhere in the middle of it. Like he did with two map links he included.

  I'd refer to this capability as having addressable pages. Addressable in terms of URLs that I can paste into a browser window, email to my mom, or post in a blog entry. Important quality. It's especially nice if you can just scrape the URL from the address bar of your browser, but not critical, as Google Maps proves; a button to generate a link is an acceptable, but less friendly substitute. Being addressable is especially hard for "web 2.0" apps, which is why I mention it at all.

  My read of the Lively page's usage of "document-oriented" is more a thought on application flow. In particular, pseudo-conversational processing. Which is both the way CICS "green screen" applications are written, as well as the way Web 1.0 applications are written. Turns out to be an incredible performant and scalable style of building applications that can run on fairly dumb clients. The reason I infer this as "document-oriented" is that, in the web case, you literally are going from document (one URL) to another document (another URL) as you progress through the application towards your final goal. Compared to the style of imperative and event driven programming you apparently do with Lively.

  So, with that thought in mind, Google Maps is clearly not "document oriented". The means by which you navigate through the map is 'live'; you aren't traversing pages like you did in old school MapQuest (which, btw, is also now "live").

  But even still, given my interpretation of Stefan's definition, I'd say there's no reason why a Lively app can be just as "document-oriented" as Google Maps given his definition; that is, exposing links to application state inside itself as URLs. You may need to work at it, like you would with any Web 2.0 app, but I don't see technical reason why it can't be done. Hint: client code running in your browser can inspect your URLs.

  Back to Stefan's original note about Lively: "it might be a good idea to work with the Web as opposed to fight against it". I think I missed Stefan's complaints about Google Maps fighting against the web. Because if Lively is fighting against the web, then so is Google Maps.

  Lastly, a note that Lively is built out of two technologies. JavaScript and SVG, and it runs in a web browser. I'm finding it really difficult to figure out how Lively is fighting the web.

• In "What is SOA?", Pete Lacey notes:

  Another problem with the SOA name is the "service" bit. At least for me, the term "service" connotes a collection of non-uniform operations. I don't even like the phrase "REST Web services." Certainly, SOAP/WS-*, CORBA, DCOM, etc. fit this definition. But REST? Not so much. In REST the key abstraction is the resource, not the service interface. Therefore SOA (and I know this is not anyone's strict definition) encompasses the above mind set, but includes SOAP and similar technologies and excludes REST.

  If you change Pete's definition of "service" to be "a collection of operations", independent of whether they are uniform or not, then REST fits the definition of service. Next, you can simply say the resource (URL) is the service interface, for REST. Just a bunch of constraints / simplifications / specializations of the more generic 'service' story.

  Sure there are plenty of other details that separate REST from those other ... things. But you can say that about all of them; they're ALL different from each other, in the details. And at 10K feet, they're all doing generally the same thing.

  As a colleague mentioned to me the other day, REST is just another form of RPC.

  I feel like we might be throwing out the baby with the bath water here. It's true that I never want to go back to the CORBA or SOAP/WS-* worlds (I have the scars to prove I was there), but that doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from them. For instance, the client-facing story for REST seems a bit ugly to me. I know this isn't real REST, but if this is the kind of 'programming interface' that we have to look forward to, in terms of documentation and artifacts to help me as a programmer ... we got some problems.

  I look forward to seeing what Steve Vinoski brings to the table, as a fellow scar-bearer.

php in project zero

Zero post
©

Project Zero's ebullient leader, Jerry Cuomo, just published an article at his blog talking about the PHP support in Project Zero. If you didn't already know, PHP is supported in Project Zero using a PHP interpreter written in Java. Pretty decent 10K ft summary of why, what, etc. With links to more details.

Wanted to point out two interesting things, to me, from Jerry's post ...

"The idea with XAPI-C is to take the existing php.net extensions, apply some macro magic, potentially some light code rewrite, and make those extension shared libraries available to Java through JNI."

Interesting programming technique; trying to reuse all the great, existing PHP extensions out there. One of PHP's great strengths is the breadth of the extension libraries. It would be great to be able to reuse this code, if possible. It's a really interesting idea to me in general, to be able to reuse extension libraries, not just across different implementations of the same language, but across multiple languages. It just seems like a terrible waste to have lots of interesting programming language libraries available, but not be able to use them in anything but a single language.

"We have debated the idea of moving our PHP interpreter into a project unto it's own - where it can explore better compatibility with php.net as well as pursue supporting a full complement of PHP applications. Thoughts?"

This seems like it makes a lot of sense. Especially if it meant being able to open source the interpreter to allow a wider community to develop it. I think the main question is, is there a wider community out there interested in continuing to develop the interpreter and libraries?

Lastly, want to point out how impressed I've been by the team in Hursley, UK and RTP, NC for getting the interpreter as functional as it is so quickly. The team maintains a wiki page at the Project Zero web site describing the current state of functionality, if you're interested in seeing how far along they are.

which flavor do you favor

Drew flavor
© Steph

A question: if you had to provide a client library to wrapper your RESTful web services, would you rather expose it as a set of resources (urls) with the valid methods (request verbs) associated with it, or provide a flat 'function library' that exposed the resources and methods in a more human-friendly fashion?

Example. Say you want to create a to-do application, which exposes two resources: a list of to-do items, and a to-do item itself. A spin on the "Gregorio table" might look like this:

resource	URL template	HTTP VERB	description
to-do items	/todo-items	GET	return a list of to-do items
to-do items	/todo-items	POST	create a new to-do item
to-do item	/todo-items/{id}	GET	return a single to-do item
to-do item	/todo-items/{id}	PUT	update a to-do item
to-do item	/todo-items/{id}	DELETE	delete a to-do item

(Please note: the examples below are painfully simple, exposing just the functional parameters (presumably uri template variables and HTTP request content) and return values (presumably HTTP response content), and not contextual information like HTTP headers, status codes, caches, socket pools, etc. A great simplification. Also note that while I'm describing this in Java code, the ideas are applicable to other languages.)

If you were going to convert this, mechanically, to a Java interface, it might look something like this:

For the first two rows of the table, you use the following interface:

1: public interface ToDoItems {
2:     public ToDo[] GET();
3:     public ToDo POST(ToDo item);
4: }

For the last three rows of the table, you use the following interface:

1: public interface ToDoItem {
2:     public ToDo GET(String id);
3:     public ToDo PUT(String id, ToDo item);
4:     public void DELETE(String id);
5: }

I'll call this the 'pure' flavor.

A different way of thinking about this is to think about the table as a flat list of functions. In that flavor, add another column to the table, named "function", where the value in the table will be unique across all rows. Presumably the function names are arbitrary, but sensible, like ToDoList() for the /todo-items - GET operation.

Here's our new table:

function	resource	URL template	HTTP VERB	description
ToDoList	to-do items	/todo-items	GET	return a list of to-do items
ToDoCreate	to-do items	/todo-items	POST	create a new to-do item
ToDoGet	to-do item	/todo-items/{id}	GET	return a single to-do item
ToDoUpdate	to-do item	/todo-items/{id}	PUT	update a to-do item
ToDoDelete	to-do item	/todo-items/{id}	DELETE	delete a to-do item

This flavor might yield the following sort of interface:

1: public interface ToDoService {
2:     public ToDo[] ToDoList();
3:     public ToDo   ToDoCreate(ToDo item);
4:     public ToDo   ToDoGet(String id);
5:     public ToDo   ToDoUpdate(String id, ToDo item);
6:     public void   ToDoDelete(String id);
7: }

I'll call this the 'applied' flavor.

Now, if you look at the combination of the two 'pure' interfaces, compared with the 'applied' interface, there's really no difference in function. In fact, the code to implement all these methods across both flavors would be exactly the same.

The only difference is how they're organized.

Now, the question is, which one is better?

Now, you might say I'm crazy, who would ever choose the 'pure' story over the 'applied' story? And my gut tells me you're right. The 'applied' story seems to be a better fit for humans, who are largely going to be the clients of these interfaces, writing programs to use them.

But this flies in the face of transparency, where we don't want to hide stuff so much from the user. HTTP is in your face, and all that. At what point do we hide HTTP-ness? If you don't want to hide stuff from your users, you might choose 'pure'.

And I wonder, are there other advantages of the 'pure' interface? You might imagine some higher-level programming capabilities (mashup builders, or even meta-programming facilities if your programming language can deal with functions/methods as first class objects) that would like to take advantage of the benefits of uniform interface (as in the 'pure' interface).

And of course, there's always the option of supporting both interfaces, as in something like this:

01: public interface ToDoService2 {
02:     public ToDo[] ToDoList();
03:     public ToDo   ToDoCreate(ToDo item);
04:     public ToDo   ToDoGet(String id);
05:     public ToDo   ToDoUpdate(String id, ToDo item);
06:     public void   ToDoDelete(String id);
07: 
08:     static public interface ToDoItems {
09:         public ToDo[] GET();
10:         public ToDo POST(ToDo item);
11:     }
12: 
13:     static public interface ToDoItem {
14:         public ToDo GET(String id);
15:         public ToDo PUT(String id, ToDo item);
16:         public void DELETE(String id);
17:     }
18: }

Even though you have 10 methods to implement, each real 'operation' is duplicated, in both the 'pure' and 'applied' flavors, so you really only have 5 methods to implement. No additional code for you to write (relatively), but double the number of ways people can interact with your service.

NetBeans 6.0 Beta 1

The Death Star vs The Borg
© Patrick Mueller

Shiver me timbers, yes, I'm blogging a bit about NetBeans. After hearing such gushing reviews of it, I figured I'd take a look. It's been at least a year, and probably more, since I last looked at it. And I should note, I'm just looking at the Ruby bits.

Thought I'd provide some quick notes on NetBeans 6.0 Beta 1 as a confirmed Eclipse user. I'd give the history of my usage of Eclipse, but then Smalltalk enters the picture around pre-Eclipse VisualAge Java time-frame, and you don't want me to go there, do ya matey? That would just make me sad anyway, remembering the good old days.

I've also used the RDT functionality available in Aptana, and will make comparisons as appropriate.

cons:

• On the mac, uses a package installer, instead of just a droppable .app file.

• Mysterious 150% cpu usage after setting my Ruby VM to be my MacPorts installed ruby. I didn't see any mention in the IDE of what it was doing, but I figured it was probably indexing the ruby files in my newly-pointed-to runtime. Only lasted a minute or so. If it had lasted much longer, I might have killed it, and then uninstalled it.

• Can only have a single Ruby VM installed; Eclipse language support usually allows multiple runtimes to be configured, one as default, but overrideable on a per-project, or per-launch basis. What do JRuby folks do, who want to run on JRuby or MRI alternatively?

• Plenty of "uncanny valley" effects going on, because Swing is in use. Of course, Eclipse also has a lot of custom ui elements; I'm becoming immune to the uncanny valley; and FireFox on the mac doesn't help there either.

pros:

• I see the Mac .app icon changed from the sharp-cornered version to a kinder, gentler version (see the image at the top), but I think I can still validly compare Eclipse and NetBeans to two of my favorite sci-fi franchises, given their logo choices. But it's certainly less Borg-ish than older versions.

• Install now ships as a .dmg for the Mac (disk image file) instead of an embedded zip file in a shell script.

• Debugging works great. Same as Eclipse with the RDT.

• I can set Eclipse key-bindings.

• F3 works most of the time ("find the definition") like in Eclipse. In fact, this is cool: F3 on a 'builtin' like Time, and NetBeans generates a 'dummy' source file showing you what the source would look like, sans method bodies, but with comments, and the method navigator populated. Nice!

• A Mercurial plugin is available for easy installation through the menus, and CVS and SVN support is built-in. I played a bit with the Mercurial plugin in a previous milestone build, and it was easy enough to use, but I never could figure out how to 'push' back to my repo. Why Eclipse doesn't ship SVN support, built-in, in this day and age, is a mystery to me.

• Don't need to add the "Ruby project nature" to a project just to edit a ruby file in the project. How I despise Eclipse's project natures.

• Provides great competition for Eclipse.

Quite usable, overall. Hat's off to the NetBeans folks! I'll probably start using it for one-off-ish Ruby work I do.

nc seas

North Carolina Seas - Google Maps
© Patrick Mueller

Well, it's September, which means it's time to start planning my "take a day off work and head to the beach to spend some quality time on the boogey board" day.

Plan is the operative word; it's easy to find out when the weather is going to be good; it's a lot harder to find out when the waves are going to be good. I finally spent some time trolling through the massive amount of data at NOAA, and finally found something close enough; forecasts of sea wave heights going out a couple of days. Not the same as the height of the waves at the beach, but close enough.

Wrote a little Ruby to generate a KML file after parsing the interesting data out of the reports, and the result is a little Google Maps / Earth mapplication, North Carolina Seas.

Source here. Note the program is set up to regenerate the KML file via a cron job every few hours, rather than as a 'web app'.

But then, after all that, maybe I'll go for a hike in the mountains at a state park instead of a day at the beach. Life is rough.

response to jsr 311

all inquiries responded to
© Andrew

Marc Hadley responded quite quickly to my blog entry on JSR 311. Excellent. I'm really digging the transparency. I'm thinking Twitter may have played a part in the quick response.

w/r/t the GPL vs CDDL licensing issue; sorry, I'm sure I saw CDDL on some of the pages, I should have included it in the blog post. I frankly am not all that familiar with the CDDL, but Dave Johnson got me curious about something, and sure enough, it looks like Apache allows CDDL licensed binary software to be shipped with Apache projects. Note that the link above is a proposal, but it sounds like Apache is already doing this in some cases with CDDL. Very cool.

As for the other issues Marc raised; it's silly to debate via blog posts; looks like the dev@jsr311.dev.java.net would be the most appropriate place to have the discussion.

But I can't resist making two notes.

From Marc: "On the Java ME side, the fact that 311 is primarily a server side API ... means it is less suitable for the ME environment anyway."

To quote from the Java ME Sun Products overview, "As CDC is not limited to just the wireless market, and expands into other emerging markets like digital television, telematics, multi-function printers, ...". Those sound like platforms that could make use of a server supporting RESTful web services.

From Marc: "Jersey will automatically produce a WADL description"

Wonderful. The point isn't even necessarily that you should make this part of the spec, but to ensure that this is do-able within the current spec's design. Because you don't want to find out later, after the spec has been finalized, that the design prevents something like generating a description. Sounds like you're doing that with the WADL generation. I'd like to see the same done with the client.

on JSR 311

311 Steps
© Glenn Harper

Some thoughts on JSR 311 - JAX-RS: The Java™ API for RESTful Web Services. The description of the JSR, from the web page is: "This JSR will develop an API for providing support for RESTful (Representational State Transfer) Web Services in the Java Platform."

Here are a few related links:

• The jsr311 project at java.net contains some documents corresponding to the JSR process - drafts, meeting minutes, mailing lists, etc.

• The Jersey project at java.net is the home for the open source reference implementation (RI) of JSR 311.

Some of the positive aspects of the ongoing effort:

• It's good to be thinking about some facility to help people with RESTful services, in Java.

• This JSR seems to be much, much more transparent than most JSRs; published meeting minutes (though a bit skimpy), mailing lists, reference implementation work being done in the open, etc. Wonderful. Wonderful!

• Even the current drafts of the spec are available, on-line, without a soul-sucking click-through license agreement! The most recent one is the "Editors draft - July 3rd, 2007 (PDF)".

• The general approach as currently implemented / described by Jersey feels more or less right. Of course, I say that because I've been recently looking at doing something similar, without having seen JSR 311, and there's a lot of commonality between the road I was heading down, and the one JSR 311 is going down. Use of annotations to augment methods and classes which describe the services, specifically. Some of the annotations I had come up with were in fact the exact same names that Jersey uses!

OK, now for the bad news.

• The licensing for the open source side only accommodates the GPL half of the universe. Leaving folks wanting something more like a BSD style license, to fend for themselves. Of course, that's not necessarily bad, it's always useful to have some competition. But it's also nice to have a single common implementation that everyone can use. There are many licenses that would be compatible with the GPL and acceptable to a wider audience.

• Specific issues from the 2007/07/03 spec draft: Section 1.2 Non-Goals:

  • Support for Java versions prior to J2SE 5.0: The API will make extensive use of annotations and will require J2SE 5.0 or later.

    Read: Sorry, J2ME. Sorry, folks stuck on Java 1.4.

  • Description, registration and discovery: The specification will neither define nor require any service description, registration or discovery capability.

    Read: We'll figure this out later; hopefully we won't have to change anything in this spec once we start thinking about this aspect of the problem.

  • Client APIs: The specification will not define client-side APIs. Other specifications are expected to provide such functionality.

    Read: We'll figure this out later; hopefully we won't have to change anything in this spec once we start thinking about this aspect of the problem.

The licensing issue is bad enough that it's really going to force an alternate implementation to be developed. This might be something that Apache would typically do, but given the Apache / Sun disagreement on JCP issues, it's not really clear to me that Apache will ever be interested in working on JSR implementations again.

Another interesting wrench to throw into the gears is Eclipse. As of Eclipse 3.3, the Equinox project has been shipping Jetty, along with some goop to allow you to use OSGi within servlets, or start an HTTP server as an OSGi service. Adding RESTful service support to this story seems like a logical next step to me. Note that the existing JSR 311 non-goal of support for <= Java 5 support violates an OSGi constraint of running in their smaller (1.4.x-ish) environments.

Seems to me, if we're going to have to work on an alternate implementation anyway (to solve the licensing issues), we might as well solve some of the technical problems as well (J2ME / Java 1.4 support, service descriptions, client apis, etc).

And yes, I do know of RESTlet™ but have not looked at it extensively; the licensing and Joint Copyright Agreement and trademark issues are non-starters for me. It is also on a pathway towards becoming a JSR.

Anyone up for a "Battle of the RESTful frameworks"?

Ruby Hoedown, day 2

Square Dance Blur 2
© Peter Wadsworth

Saturday was day 2 of the Ruby Hoedown 2007. I had to leave early and so missed "Using C to Tune Your Ruby (or Rails) Application" by Jared Richardson, and the final keynote by Marcel Molina, Jr.

Nathaniel Talbott, one of the conference organizers, mentioned before one of the sessions that the sessions are being recorded, audio and video, along with the slides presented, and will be available on the web shortly. With some kind of a Creative Commons license. Wow! I wish more conferences did that. I won't dive into details on the sessions below, since the info will be available soon, verbatim.

Sessions I did attend:

• Building Games with Ruby - Andrea O.K. Wright

  Andrea discussed a handful of gaming toolkits for Ruby. Supporting everything from MUDs to 3D. A few of the toolkits were wrappers over SDL.

• Lightning talks

  • test/spec - Clinton Nixon - layers an RSpec-inspired interface on top of Test::Unit
  • a strategy game written in JRuby, using Swing - didn't get the presenter's name
  • methodphitamine - Jay Phillips - a more powerful alternative to Symbol#to_proc
  • Ruleby - Joe Kutner - a pure Ruby rule engine
  • tyrant - Patrick Reagan - a way to run Rails applications without each user needing a development environment
  • generating Ruby classes - Luke Kanies - dynamic code gen
  • Iron Ruby - Brian Hitney - Ruby implemented on the CLR
  • static sites with Rails - Brian Adkins - how to enable mostly static pages with Rails
  • Thoughtworks test strategies - Dan Manges - how TW designs tests for teams
  • myDecisionHelper - Tyler Start (sp?) - self-help web app

• BOFs over lunch

  Went to Rick Denatale's "Smalltalk for Rubyists; Ruby for Smalltalkers". More the former than the latter, unfortunately for me. But still interesting and informative.

• Does Ruby Have a Chasm to Cross? - Ken Auer

  Great talk; like Bruce Tate's keynote on Friday, referenced the book "Crossing the Chasm" (just added it to my 'wanna read' list). Ken's talk came at it from a different angle: being there, when Smalltalk was just about to 'cross the chasm', but didn't make it. Why didn't it? What can we learn from Smalltalk's tragic history?

All in all, great conference. I'll be there next year, assuming they have it again. Maybe I'll have some more Ruby under my belt by then.

Forgot to mention in the previous post that I used my Nintendo DS-Lite with the Opera browser, again, to do some lite surfing, email checking, twittering, during the conference. Very convenient.