Rails - Mar 2006 - Correcting Bent Records: Mongrel is not SCGI

Hi,

I kept getting a very weird question about Mongrel
(http://mongrel.rubyforge.org) and SCGI that I think really needs to be
cleared up:

** Mongrel is not SCGI and will never need, use, require, or interact with
SCGI (unless someone wants to write the handler for it). **

For some reason people have been under the impression that Mongrel actually
uses or interacts with my other project SCGI Rails Runner.  SRR was my
previous attempt at making it easier to serve Ruby web applications.

Mongrel is a completely different beast but with the same goals:  simple,
platform neutral, framework agnostic, fast as hell web services.  It could
almost be considered SRR 2.0 in that it drops the SCGI protocol and just
goes straight HTTP, but also since it has major architectural improvements.

** Other than my authorship there is no connection to Mongrel and SRR. **

For those of you who need pictures I''ve added a FAQ related to this
misunderstanding:

http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/faq.html

If anyone has some clues as to how this misconception may have come about
(other than people not reading) then let me know so I can fix that up.

This has been a service announcement from your friendly neighborhood coder.
Enjoy!

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/

Ahhh, so Mongrel is the successor to SCGI then? I wasn''t confused about
Mongrel (it using SCGI), but didn''t know it was SRR 2.0. Do you have 
docs comparing Mongrel with SCGI, such as performance differences, 
features, etc.?

If Mongrel is indeed the successor to SCGI, I have to admit not having 
all the error handling config for each vhost in Lighty''s config sounds 
nice :).

Thanks,
Joe

PS - Your FASQ link is broken ;).

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

Just want to make sure of something though.  You get that Mongrel uses HTTP
and is completely different right?  When I say "SRR 2.0" I mean I
learned a
lot from SRR that I''m putting into Mongrel.  *NOT* that Mongrel shares
any
code with SRR.

Did that come across in the posting?

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/

PS.  Thanks, I''ll fix the link.


On 3/4/06 2:38 PM, "Joe" <joe@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahhh, so Mongrel is the successor to SCGI then? I wasn''t confused
about
> Mongrel (it using SCGI), but didn''t know it was SRR 2.0. Do you
have
> docs comparing Mongrel with SCGI, such as performance differences,
> features, etc.?
> 
> If Mongrel is indeed the successor to SCGI, I have to admit not having
> all the error handling config for each vhost in Lighty''s config
sounds
> nice :).
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe
> 
> PS - Your FASQ link is broken ;).

Zed Shaw wrote:
> Just want to make sure of something though.  You get that Mongrel uses 
> HTTP
> and is completely different right?
I get that :). From the start my impression has been that Mongrel 
operates similar to WEBrick, but aims to be much speedier. But that''s 
about the extent of my knowledge (I haven''t tried out Mongrel yet) ;).

Joe

> When I say "SRR 2.0" I mean I 
> learned a
> lot from SRR that I''m putting into Mongrel.  *NOT* that Mongrel
shares
> any
> code with SRR.
> 
> Did that come across in the posting?
> 
> Zed A. Shaw
> http://www.zedshaw.com/
> 
> PS.  Thanks, I''ll fix the link.

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

Zed Shaw wrote:
> Just want to make sure of something though.  You get that Mongrel uses 
> HTTP
> and is completely different right?  When I say "SRR 2.0" I mean I
> learned a
> lot from SRR that I''m putting into Mongrel.  *NOT* that Mongrel
shares
> any
> code with SRR.
> 
> Did that come across in the posting?
> 
> Zed A. Shaw
> http://www.zedshaw.com/
> 
> PS.  Thanks, I''ll fix the link.
Hi Zed,

Should we consider SRR end of life?

/Boris

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

I''m still supporting it and will do some work on it after the 0.4
Mongrel
release since there''s a couple projects that still use it.

That being said, I''m probably going to put all the new snazzy features
into
Mongrel since it''s a much easier hosting solution to work with.

Zed


On 3/5/06 2:21 AM, "Boris" <boris@bitslapped.nl> wrote:
> Zed Shaw wrote:
>> Just want to make sure of something though.  You get that Mongrel uses
>> HTTP
>> and is completely different right?  When I say "SRR 2.0" I
mean I
>> learned a
>> lot from SRR that I''m putting into Mongrel.  *NOT* that
Mongrel shares
>> any
>> code with SRR.
>> 
>> Did that come across in the posting?
>> 
>> Zed A. Shaw
>> http://www.zedshaw.com/
>> 
>> PS.  Thanks, I''ll fix the link.
> 
> Hi Zed,
> 
> Should we consider SRR end of life?
> 
> /Boris