Will it be considered there be an alternative extension supported for
.rhtml files?
Aptana and Dreamweaver doesn't support it out of the box, and I'm too
lazy to figure out how to configure (or re-configure) them to
recognize .rhtml files as "plain" HTML files. Considering .rhtml files
are mostly visual stuff (X/HTML) it's much nicer if I could edit them
visually using these tools. For all else I'd prefer scite or radrails.
If possible, maybe just make .rhtml the preferred extension, but if it
fails (template not found), check for a template with the same name
but different extension, possibly .ruby.html, .rails.html, .r.html,
.erb.html, or whatever but just end it with html. So everybody will be
happy, especially me. Thanks...
Alternatively someone could ask Dreamweaver nd Aptana to add .rhtml to
their supported extensions so they would be treated in a first class
fashion just like .asp, .jsp, .php, etc. RHTML is very similar in
regards to these and they are supported well inside most products.
Another reason to keep the name distinct is so that the editors can
infer additional functionality from the name. In the future when
Dreamweaver finally gets it, they will want to provide context
sensitve help for rhtml inline, so having the distinct name keeps
things clear and allow for these things to occur.
Thanks... I guess for the moment I'll ditch Dreamweaver anyway. Have
never used any of its "power" features (server scripts? templates?
libraries? assets?). I've to say the most used feature of Dreamweaver
for me is its Reference documentation for HTML, Javascript, and the
like. If only they make it more convenient and have a search box or
index.
Anyways, since I'll be installing Ubuntu within a couple days (I'll
still be using Windows inside VMware). I think RadRails + Aptana would
be a better alternative.
Though I still wonder whether Aptana will support .rhtml? Since it does
currently not (and I'm not sure how to enable this support, manually
adding the .rhtml "works" for HTML editing, but the WYSIWYG doesn't
work).
Dreamweaver is configurable by its somewhat obscure XML files. I think by hacking a few lines in those you can make .rhtml behave like anything you want.
The only question is - why
? Those templates are not complete until parsed by eruby. Pretty WYSIWYG will be broken, so no benefit from that. Dreamweaver templates are its own “templating system” it’s only useful for static websites. Libraries, assets - what good are those? You can have your macros/snippets/whatever in your favorite text editor.
Sure RadRails/Aptana are much better, especially when your platform of choice is Linux. You can have an embedded browser inside RadRails while writing templates. After all, WYSIWYG never could beat hand-coding your templates and previewing the result in real web browsers.
Dreamweaver is configurable by its somewhat obscure XML files. I think by
hacking a few lines in those you can make .rhtml behave like anything you
want.
The only question is - why? Those templates are not complete until parsed by
eruby. Pretty WYSIWYG will be broken, so no benefit from that. Dreamweaver
templates are its own "templating system" it's only useful for static
websites. Libraries, assets - what good are those? You can have your
macros/snippets/whatever in your favorite text editor.
I guess you're right, Mislav. I guess I'm typing 90% of the time rather
than click-and-drag even with Dreamweaver. But from my experience with
templates (PHP, Smarty, my own) most of these are
Dreamweaver-WYSIWYG-able. And it helps a lot especially when designing
layouts not templates (especially if the layout doesn't contain too
many dynamic elements and only have the single dynamic element that is
the body of the page).
Sure RadRails/Aptana are much better, especially when your platform of
choice is Linux. You can have an embedded browser inside RadRails while
writing templates. After all, WYSIWYG never could beat hand-coding your
templates and previewing the result in real web browsers.
You're right. If only previewing wasn't really *that* slow.
I need some opinions... what's the fastest development setup for Rails
(not production) usable in Ubuntu (Linux kernel 2.6)? (I will switch
from WinXP SP2 to Ubuntu within the next week), is it:
- Apache2 + FastCGI
- WEBrick?
- Lighttpd + FastCGI
- Mongrel (?) -- I'm not familiar at all with mongrel or even how it
works.
Anyway my system is AMD Sempron 2600 with 512 MB of RAM (which
sometimes will be used partially with Windows XP SP2 in VMware, I give
it 224 MB).
