Rails core - May 2012 - Update Rails on Rack documentation

The Rails on Rack documentation is still using the 
"ActionController::Dispatcher" class but it no longer exists, I can
update
the documentation, I just wanted to discuss what''s the best way to do
it,
I''ve tested with "run Rails.application" as well as with
"run
MyAppName::Application" (just like the generated config.ru file does it), 
what do you think?

So the documentation could end up like this:

Rails.application or MyAppName::Application is the primary Rack application 
object of a Rails application. Any Rack compliant web server should be 
using Rails.application or MyAppName::Application object to serve a Rails 
application.


There''s another thing. Just after the text above you can find this:

rails server does the basic job of creating a Rack::Builder object and 
starting the webserver. This is Rails’ equivalent of Rack’s rackup script.


Which is not true, at least it doesn''t do it directly, what it does is:

1. It creates a class: class Server < ::Rack::Server
2. The Server#start method calls "super"
3. Rack creates the Rack::Builder object

am I wrong?

So, what do you think about those changes?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/zrJJNzSTdWMJ.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.

I made an initial pull request already: 
https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/6454.

What do you guys think?

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:23:10 AM UTC-5, Rafael Magaña
wrote:
>
> The Rails on Rack documentation is still using the 
> "ActionController::Dispatcher" class but it no longer exists, I
can update
> the documentation, I just wanted to discuss what''s the best way to
do it,
> I''ve tested with "run Rails.application" as well as with
"run
> MyAppName::Application" (just like the generated config.ru file does
it),
> what do you think?
>
> So the documentation could end up like this:
>
> Rails.application or MyAppName::Application is the primary Rack 
> application object of a Rails application. Any Rack compliant web server 
> should be using Rails.application or MyAppName::Application object to 
> serve a Rails application.
>
>
> There''s another thing. Just after the text above you can find
this:
>
> rails server does the basic job of creating a Rack::Builder object and 
> starting the webserver. This is Rails’ equivalent of Rack’s rackup script.
>
>
> Which is not true, at least it doesn''t do it directly, what it
does is:
>
> 1. It creates a class: class Server < ::Rack::Server
> 2. The Server#start method calls "super"
> 3. Rack creates the Rack::Builder object
>
> am I wrong?
>
> So, what do you think about those changes?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/6NA_qEnVtY4J.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.