Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl style of
Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???

Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.

Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts to make
Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.

Just my $.02...

Yeah, choice sucks, huh?  If only I had no freedom ....

-Derrick

On Mar 31, 2006, at 1:20 PM, news.gmane,org wrote:

> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl
> style of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???
>
> Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.
>
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts
> to make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.
>
> Just my $.02...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

Derrick Spell wrote:
> Yeah, choice sucks, huh?  If only I had no freedom ....

Actually, yes, too much choice does suck.  Makes people nervous that
they're not picking the 'right' one.  Especially because those facing
the choice for the first time are almost by definition those most
ill-equipped to make the decision.

http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2006/02/18/maximizers-satisficers-and-pro...

Although I don't think that in this case, things are that bad... it
doesn't take long to figure out what's what.

--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/

lol .... i just noticed you called mod_perl robust.  Can anyone say mp2?


On Mar 31, 2006, at 1:20 PM, news.gmane,org wrote:

> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl
> style of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???
>
> Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.
>
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts
> to make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.
>
> Just my $.02...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

I love the fact of having WEBrick installed and working w/rails. It
makes development work a breeze, not processes tying things up when
I'm not developing. I thought it was a great idea. I've never worked
w/SCGI or Mongrel. I do know, obviously, we need FCGI. LigHTTPD seems
to be a great server to deploy with. Not everyone loves Apache.

I also do not really see it as splintering. Why splinter and support
MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, MSSQL? *I* only use MySQL, we don't need
the others, focus on better MySQL support, forget the others ;-)

Jeremy

On Mar 31, 2006, at 1:20 PM, news.gmane,org wrote:

> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl
> style of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???
>
> Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.
>
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts
> to make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.
>
> Just my $.02...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:20:15AM -0800, news.gmane,org wrote:
} Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl style of
} Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
} lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???

Scgi, fcgi, fcgid, and mod_ruby are not Rails-specific. Work has been done
to allow Rails to work with any of them (except mod_ruby) because their
suitability depends on a variety of things, including the platform. WEBrick
also predates RoR, I believe, and it is only intended for development (for
which it is well-suited). Lighttpd exists to provide good performance while
being more loosely integrated with (or not requiring at all) Apache than
the various CGI methods. Mongrel is the new kid on the block, and may wind
up replacing WEBrick and/or lighthttpd.

} Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.

Do your development under WEBrick. The appropriate deployment option will
be obvious based on your particular system's constraints.

} Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
} except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts to make
} Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.

You should certainly become knowledgeable about Apache integration, then.
Personally, I have been happy with mod_fcgid under Apache2. Then again, I
don't do real deployment.

} Just my $.02...

I was pretty frustrated when I was trying to figure out deployument for my
first app. I couldn't figure out what I should use, nor could I determine
how to do what I wanted to do. Eventually I did find the docs I needed, and
all is well. Once you figure it out, you can do it again. The problem is
that there are so many choices, but those choices exist because someone out
there needed each one of them.

It would be nice to find a single document that covered all possible
deployment options and how to go about them. AFAIK, though, it doesn't
exist. Feel free to write one. You probably won't have enough knowledge to
fill in all the options, but you can fill in what you know and leave the
skeleton open for submissions. Here's an outline you could start from:

I) Introduction
II) Choices you must make
   - What platform (Windows, *nix)?
   - Virtual host or path?
   - Integrate with Apache?
     - Apache1 or Apache2?
   ? integrate with IIS?
III) Apache integration options
   A) mod_proxy
      1) rewrite rules
      2) lighttpd
      3) mongrel
   B) mod_scgi (I think)
   C) mod_fcgi
   D) mod_fcgid
IV) Standalone options
   A) WEBrick
   B) lighttpd
   C) mongrel
???) IIS integration options???
   ???

--Greg

Gregory Seidman wrote:

> I was pretty frustrated when I was trying to figure out deployument for
> my first app. I couldn't figure out what I should use, nor could I
> determine how to do what I wanted to do. Eventually I did find the docs I
> needed, and all is well. Once you figure it out, you can do it again. The
problem is
> that there are so many choices, but those choices exist because someone
> out
> there needed each one of them.

I'll second this. I'm one of those countless souls that recently
converted to Rails and discovered a renewed sense of freedom in the
philosophy of convention over configuration. Being on "rails" meant
that
certain decisions were already made for me and I could concentrate on my
business. I had the freedom to deviate from the track if I needed to but
in most cases I never needed to.

Linux distros, database vendors, and web servers are not part of Rails
but it would be nice if Rails had an opinion about these things just as
it does about so many other aspects of my application.

Discussions of distros, databases, web servers, etc. often devolve into
religous arguments but again, it would be nice to know that there is a
definite, opinionated path that I can follow to get my app into
production that just works. It might not meet all of my needs but I know
that I can stray from the path if I need to.

I'm currently working on getting my first production environment up
using Debian Stable, lighttpd, and mysql. All I want is the ability to
run a single app, send mail through ActionMailer, and manage deployment
via Capistrano. I'll take notes and see what happens.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

> Linux distros, database vendors, and web servers are not part of Rails
> but it would be nice if Rails had an opinion about these things just as
> it does about so many other aspects of my application.

im pretty sure its opinion is 'develop on a mac , using textmate, and
deploy with mongrel, using mysql as your db'. but clearly the fact that
such things are abstracted in a way that you do have choice is an
opinion as well..

i'm  not sure 'splinter' is the right metaphor for this thread. rails
are usually made out of metal, and you can run an amtrak passenger car,
or a big graffiti-covered box carrying coal, or live cattle,  or
whatever, as well..

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

news.gmane,org wrote:
> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl style
of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???
>
> Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.
>
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts to make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.
>
> Just my $.02...


My impression is that *FastCGI* is shaping up to be that environment of
record, and it works just fine with Apache, right?

On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:20 AM, news.gmane,org wrote:

> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl
> style of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???

mod_perl isn't particularly scalable, in and of itself.

Now, don't get me wrong, I *love* mod_perl. It gives
great performance on dynamic requests and allows Apache
mods to be written in Perl.

However, to scale a mod_perl app, it's generally
understood that you need a static+proxy front-end
passing dynamic requests back to mod_perl backends
because the mod_perl instances are so large that
you cannot handle a reasonable number of client
HTTP connections if you're using mod_perl alone.

So, this *new* community is feeling out the options.

Everything about Rails is new to most peopleat least
to some degree. MVC, ORM, Ruby, etc. I'm delighted
to have learned about Lighttpd, and squeal with
delight at the thought of having zero configuration
backend deployments with mongrel.

Eventually a consensus will emerge. Be patient.

--
-- Tom Mornini

WEBrick is really the only thing that is part of rails.

The rest of the things you mention do not ship with Rails. They are
external programs that do things like serve web requests.

Your remark is kind of like asking why Rails runs on Linux, BSD, OS/X,
and Windows. Or Why does Rails work with Oracle, Postgres, mySQL, and
other databases.

Should Rails developers concentrate on one OS or on one DB? Why should
they concentrate on one webserver (other than WEBrick)?

It works with them because they exist and people use them in their
environments.

That's open source for you. A developer tries Rails and says 'Gee that's
nice, but I wish it worked with ADAbase...' Next thing you know the
developer writes the code and Rails works with ADAbase.

Now If you are learning rails, just stick with one stack at first. use
the DB you are familiar with, and the web server you are familiar with.
Then, if you ever become disatisfied, either write code to make your
stack better, or try an alternate!

news.gmane,org wrote:
> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl
> style of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???
>
> Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.
>
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts to
> make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.
>
> Just my $.02...


--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 10:20:15AM -0800, news.gmane,org wrote:
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts to make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.

"It's very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any language
except PHP, so it would seem logical to focus all our efforts to make PHP
the 'production language of record' for PoR."

You could also perform a very similar transformation by OS.

The difficulty is that what seems absolute and completely beyond doubt for
you isn't necessarily what the rest of the world sees.  You can take Ruby
yourself as an example there -- in Japan, apparently, it's has insane
popularity.  Until Rails (and to a lesser extent the Prags) came along,
nobody in the English-speaking world had ever really heard of it or used it
(it rated a mention at the same level as say SmallTalk or OCaml).  It would
no doubt have seemed ridiculous to many to base a web framework like Rails
on such a poorly-supported language -- and yet, here we all are, and Ruby
brings some fairly unique features to the table to enable some of Rails'
coolest features.

Give it a year and you might just be able to switch a few nouns around in
the above paragraph to describe the Rails hosting landscape.  If Rails
prematurely "settles" on one solution, then we'll never know if
environment
X is insanely better for Rails deployment.  I've switched a lot of stuff to
lighty (both Rails and otherwise) from being a die-hard Apacheite, and
everyone here is loving it.  I'm keeping an eye on Mongrel, too, as it looks
like it could do good things.

- Matt


--
<Igloo> I remember going to my first tutorial in room 404. I was most
upset
when I found it.

news.gmane,org wrote:
> Why isnt the RoR community focusing on robust and scalable mod_perl
> style of
> Apache environment, rather then splintering all over the place with
> lighthttp, mongrel, WEBrick, SCGI, fcgi, etc???
>
> Its frustrating as someone who is trying to migrate to RoR.
>
> Its very unlikely I would ever get a contract to work on any webserver
> except Apache, so it would seem logicaly to focus all our efforts to
> make
> Apache the 'production environment of record' for RoR.
>
> Just my $.02...

>From a security perspective, it is good to have choices in case a patch
isn't available for a new exploit.

I frequently test the latest Lighttpd-1.4.x in case I need to replace
Apache on short notice.  I'm happy with rails-1.1 on Apache 2.0.55 (MPM
Worker) + mod_fcgid-1.08 (patched to keep one dispatch.fcgi ignore
autokill settings) + mod_security-1.9.2 (to block XSS & SQL injection
attacks).


--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.