Planning on using either Apache 1.3/fcgi or Lighttpd/fcgi for production. Probably Apache as our ops group is more comfortable with it. All else being equal, we''d use the same setup for dev as well. But seems most folks use WEBrick for dev, then switch to lighttpd/Apache for production. So far as I can tell, lighttpd/Apache works just as well in dev -- ie., class definitions are still reloaded on each request, so you get the right dev environ of just "change and reload". Is there any advantage to using WEBrick in dev?
WEBrick is very, very easy to get running (at least on windows). ruby script/server from your rails app can''t get much quicker than that On 8/4/05, Michael Schoen <schoenm-ihVZJaRskl1bRRN4PJnoQQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Planning on using either Apache 1.3/fcgi or Lighttpd/fcgi for > production. Probably Apache as our ops group is more comfortable with it. > > All else being equal, we''d use the same setup for dev as well. But seems > most folks use WEBrick for dev, then switch to lighttpd/Apache for > production. > > So far as I can tell, lighttpd/Apache works just as well in dev -- ie., > class definitions are still reloaded on each request, so you get the > right dev environ of just "change and reload". > > Is there any advantage to using WEBrick in dev? > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Ken Barker wrote:> WEBrick is very, very easy to get running (at least on windows). > > ruby script/server from your rails app > > can''t get much quicker than thatTotally get why lots of folks use it for that reason. Given that "apachectl start" isn''t any harder for us, are there other reasons why we''d _want_ to use WEBrick?
On 8/4/05, Michael Schoen <schoenm-ihVZJaRskl1bRRN4PJnoQQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Ken Barker wrote: > > WEBrick is very, very easy to get running (at least on windows). > > > > ruby script/server from your rails app > > > > can''t get much quicker than that > > Totally get why lots of folks use it for that reason. Given that > "apachectl start" isn''t any harder for us, are there other reasons why > we''d _want_ to use WEBrick?I think the ease comes from the fact that WEBrick is already bundled and ready to go, in your rails app, not what you type to get it going. FastCGI takes some time to install / configure. -- Chris Martin Web Developer Open Source & Web Standards Advocate http://www.chriscodes.com/
On 5.8.2005, at 02:57, Chris Martin wrote:> On 8/4/05, Michael Schoen <schoenm-ihVZJaRskl1bRRN4PJnoQQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> Totally get why lots of folks use it for that reason. Given that >> "apachectl start" isn''t any harder for us, are there other reasons why >> we''d _want_ to use WEBrick? > > I think the ease comes from the fact that WEBrick is already bundled > and ready to go, in your rails app, not what you type to get it going.Exactly. If you have lighttpd/fcgi (or apache for that matter) up and running in general, there''s nothing why you wouldn''t use it for development, too. It will be a lot closer to the production performance and starting/restarting it is IMHO no more hassle than with WEBrick. //jarkko -- Jarkko Laine http://jlaine.net http://odesign.fi _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails