Just throwing out this for discussion. I received an e-mail Zend announcing this:> Zend and IBM are proud to announce the availability of Zend Core > for IBM, a certified, easy-to-install PHP environment, pre- > integrated with the IBM DB2 UDB and Cloudscape databases. > > Zend is also formally rolling out the Zend Network, a comprehensive > service and support system delivering enterprise-quality support > and updates for PHP. The Zend Network offers a number of support > options for PHP ranging from Web-based support, up through premium > phone-based support. > > The combination of Zend Core for IBM and Zend Network provides a > seamless, out of the box, enterprise grade PHP environment, easing > PHP application development and deployment.Having experienced the challenges distributing an application for installation on a wide range of platforms, wouldn''t it be a good focus after Rails 1.0 is released to provide a similar solution for Rails? Installers that could insure production quality versions of Ruby, Rails, RubyGem and FastCGI are installed, and cover the major deployment platforms, such as FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X, etc. From my experience those 4 items are where the most issues are encountered. Once those 4 items are installed configuration issues are generally minor and the time to deploy an application is relatively short. This could go a long way towards removing a barrier _some_ decision makers hide behind in their adoption of Rails. -- Lon Baker Speedymac LLC http://www.speedymac.com AIM: spdemac Skype: spdemac
> Installers that could insure production quality versions of Ruby, > Rails, RubyGem and FastCGI are installed, and cover the major > deployment platforms, such as FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X, etc.I know i plug this more then I should but I really feel that its a great way to get ruby up on running just about everywhere: curl http://home.leetsoft.com/dropbox/private-ruby/install | sh It will download and compile the ruby core, gems, fastcgi-dev for you, as well as native fcgi and mysql extensions. Additionally it will get all the gems installed which typo ( and many other rails applications ) typically needs. I''m not saying this can compete with IBM enterprise support for rails but installation should be fairly easy with this... -- Tobi http://www.snowdevil.ca - Snowboards that don''t suck http://typo.leetsoft.com - Open source weblog engine http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog
> > Installers that could insure production quality versions of Ruby, > > Rails, RubyGem and FastCGI are installed, and cover the major > > deployment platforms, such as FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X, etc.I''ve started and stopped writing this a bunch of times:>From a "shopping around for frameworks" perspective, i.e. a developer orshop considering dev/deployment with Rails, I think the deployment with FCGI part of the Rails choice is what appears the flakiest, or let''s say least-polished. Mentions of apache2 being only for the brave in the Rails book also doesn''t encourage a warm comfy feeling either. Hopefully that advice will be out-of-date soon. And as cool as lighttpd is, many people are not familiar with it enough to entrust such a big decision to it. For all of java''s tedious work and config, I think the fact that people can deploy pretty easily and reliably with Tomcat or Jetty or Resin is a big attraction. Same for mod_php, as it''s in Apache which they know and trust. And python has some nice small standalone servers, that can handle lots of lower-traffic production settings since they''re threaded (i.e. MoinMoin vs. Instiki, tracd, etc.). Just a few points I think others share... basically we have a gem (pun!) in the rough (fastcgi). It does appear FCGI usage is maybe picking up lately though, as PHP sec issues cause ISPs to look for ways to run apps with non-apache-level privs. Nice side benefit being Rails and others can use FCGI. -- ________________________________ toddgrimason*todd[ at ]slack.net
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:30:13PM -0400, Todd Grimason wrote:> For all of java''s tedious work and config, I think the fact that people > can deploy pretty easily and reliably with Tomcat or Jetty or Resin is a > big attraction. Same for mod_php, as it''s in Apache which they know and > trust. And python has some nice small standalone servers, that can > handle lots of lower-traffic production settings since they''re threaded > (i.e. MoinMoin vs. Instiki, tracd, etc.).Nitpick: java deployment is alright provided you use the right version of the j2ee API. I''ve had serious problems with migrating applications from tomcat 4 to tomcat 5 and tomcat 5 to tomcat 5.5. Yeah I know you can usually get around the issues, but if you''re stuck with a framework that doesn''t, you''re screwed. With the CGI specs, you''re on much more stable ground IMHO.> Just a few points I think others share... basically we have a gem (pun!) > in the rough (fastcgi). It does appear FCGI usage is maybe picking up > lately though, as PHP sec issues cause ISPs to look for ways to run apps > with non-apache-level privs. Nice side benefit being Rails and others > can use FCGI.Actually, I''ve been hearing about fastcgi for a long time (AFAIK it''s been around since at least 1996), and I would like to use it not just for ruby, but also for perl (mod_perl has serious security issues on a shared hosting environment). The main problem for me has been finding a (cheap, local) hosting company that supports it. The underlying technique is simple and sound and the implementation should be stable enough by now. Anyway, just my two cents, Joost.
* Joost Diepenmaat [2005-07-13 17:04]:> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:30:13PM -0400, Todd Grimason wrote: > > For all of java''s tedious work and config, I think the fact that people > > can deploy pretty easily and reliably with Tomcat or Jetty or Resin is a > > Nitpick: java deployment is alright provided you use the right version of > the j2ee API. I''ve had serious problems with migrating applications fromRight, well I think it''s largely a "perceived" issue - and reflection of available documentation and public knowledge/discussion. And I''m thinking more in the sysadmin category than developers hitting a moving target (API), which is of course also important. That said, the servlet containers do have much more functionality built-in than a fcgi dispatch script does -- useful diagnostics and such. Gives a more "finished" feel to the whole assembly, whether or not that''s reflected in performance or usability.> > in the rough (fastcgi). It does appear FCGI usage is maybe picking up > > and sound and the implementation should be stable enough by now.It has been around and in use for a long while. But not often in a high-profile way. Of course not having Sun and IBM behind it gives it a few less marketing dollars. And apparently its implementation for the new API of apache2 is not quite stable enough (according to the Rails book at least, I''ve not tried it). I''m just sayin'' it''d be a good area to address the perception of if in fact the reality is okay -- which it seems mostly to be (apache2 stability excepted - or so I hear...). Or a nice, fast, threaded webrick alternative might be nice, though I figure that''s more or less impossible given thread-safety issues and ruby''s lack of native threads[1]. Now back to regularly scheduled programming... [1] http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/syndeyTheNewPeopleSChoiceRuby.html -- ________________________________ toddgrimason*todd[ at ]slack.net
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 05:58:36PM -0400, Todd Grimason wrote:> * Joost Diepenmaat [2005-07-13 17:04]: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:30:13PM -0400, Todd Grimason wrote: > > > For all of java''s tedious work and config, I think the fact that people > > > can deploy pretty easily and reliably with Tomcat or Jetty or Resin is a > > > > Nitpick: java deployment is alright provided you use the right version of > > the j2ee API. I''ve had serious problems with migrating applications from > > Right, well I think it''s largely a "perceived" issue - and reflection of > available documentation and public knowledge/discussion. And I''m > thinking more in the sysadmin category than developers hitting a moving > target (API), which is of course also important. > > That said, the servlet containers do have much more functionality > built-in than a fcgi dispatch script does -- useful diagnostics and > such. Gives a more "finished" feel to the whole assembly, whether or not > that''s reflected in performance or usability.Well, the fact that the CGI API is a lot more lowlevel than the java servlet API has its advantages and disadvantages. I''m claiming that having a simple coupling between the standard ISP provided services and the specifics of the hosted application is a good idea. As an application developer I''d rather have the option of replacing a session library myself instead of having to rely on the "standard supported platforms" of the ISP.> > and sound and the implementation should be stable enough by now. > > It has been around and in use for a long while. But not often in a > high-profile way. Of course not having Sun and IBM behind it gives it a > few less marketing dollars. And apparently its implementation for the > new API of apache2 is not quite stable enough (according to the Rails > book at least, I''ve not tried it).I must admit I don''t haven''t got any experience with apache 2 and fastcgi. OTOH, most ISPs I know support apache 1 only (for now, ofcourse), and I can''t see many advantages of using apache2 with fastcgi anyway.> I''m just sayin'' it''d be a good area to address the perception of if in > fact the reality is okay -- which it seems mostly to be (apache2 > stability excepted - or so I hear...). Or a nice, fast, threaded webrick > alternative might be nice, though I figure that''s more or less > impossible given thread-safety issues and ruby''s lack of native > threads[1].I agree that the perseption of ruby could be better. I don''t have any clear advice except"have patience". People will recognise a good idea, if they have the time to "get it" :-)> Now back to regularly scheduled programming... > > [1] > http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/syndeyTheNewPeopleSChoiceRuby.htmlThis looks interesting, by the way. /me bookmarks Joost.