

Chad Fowler on  Maglev  - nickb
http://www.chadfowler.com/2008/6/5/maglev

======
alex_c
I haven't followed Maglev closely beyond some of the links posted here, so the
following confused me:

 _There were questions during the demo about ActiveRecord compatibility. To
me, building in ActiveRecord compatibility is worse than a waste of time._

[...]

 _When you don’t NEED an RDBMS (more often than you think) or you need
scalable Ruby servers, I think Maglev is going to be an enticing alternative._

My understanding was that Maglev is an implementation of Ruby, while
ActiveRecord is a feature of Rails... What am I missing? Is there any
fundamental incompatibility between Maglev and Ruby that would prevent
ActiveRecord from ever working? Why would it have to be "built in"?

Edit: This link <http://www.avibryant.com/2008/06/maglev-recap.html> from the
other discussion thread gave me more information. Still, if Maglev is Ruby (or
Ruby+, maybe?) and ActiveRecord is written in Ruby, then bugs and minor
incompatibilities aside, shouldn't ActiveRecord just work?

~~~
avibryant
Maglev is a persistent, distributed runtime - there's a virtual object space
which is accessible from many VMs across many machines, and is transactionally
persisted to disk. So it's not so much that there's an incompatibility (you
_could_ use normal ActiveRecord from Maglev) as that it provides a better
integrated alternative. What's being discussed here is to what degree this
integrated alternative should present an API compatible with ActiveRecord.

~~~
alex_c
Thanks - that answers my question.

