3

Basically I want to load this:

require "active_record/railtie"
require "active_resource/railtie"
require "action_mailer/railtie"

and not load action_controller because in this particular situation I have no use for it.

Looking at the code in Rails' master, I can see:

# For now, action_controller must always be present with
# rails, so let's make sure that it gets required before
# here. This is needed for correctly setting up the middleware.
# In the future, this might become an optional require.
require "action_controller/railtie"

... so I was wondering: Is it possible to load Rails with only active_record, active_resource and action_mailer, or do I always have to load action_controller?

marcgg
  • 65,020
  • 52
  • 178
  • 231
  • 2
    Why do you need to use rails at all in this case? Just include ActiveRecord, ActiveResource, and ActionMailer gems in your own script? – cpjolicoeur Mar 27 '12 at 14:11
  • Just out of curiosity, why do you want to drop ActionController? Is there some deeper optimization you're trying to achieve (lowest possible memory footprint, for example), or something else like that? – jefflunt Mar 27 '12 at 14:14
  • @cpjolicoeur: I tried that, and ended up with a ~100 lines file mimicking rails. – marcgg Mar 27 '12 at 14:21
  • @normalocity I'm trying to run a light version of my Rails app that could be used by Resque workers. The goal is to have the lowest memory footprint because I'm running pools of 100+ workers – marcgg Mar 27 '12 at 14:23

1 Answers1

0

Rails is a MVC framework for the web, while Resque "is a Redis-backed Ruby library for creating background jobs".

If you need models, then use ActiveRecord.

If you need views, Ruby has ERB in its standard library.

If you don't need routes and controllers, then using a web framework doesn't make any sense.

Andrea Pavoni
  • 5,311
  • 2
  • 29
  • 44