Rails - Jun 2007 - Bypass "public html" and go straight to a controller, or not?

I''m wondering what the general consensus is for utilizing Apache for
the
static content and only using Mongrel/WEBrick/etc for the Ruby code.  From
the resource perspective, it''s a rather obvious choice.  From the
development perspective, it''s not so clear.  I personally
don''t care to have
Apache on my development machine and enjoy the flexibility of developing my
projects across multiple computers.  To develop, all I need to do is
checkout my code from Subversion and start a Mongrel instance.  No Apache
config, etc.  My application is right there, complete, and ready to roll.
If I had the Apache layer, I''d need to spend time configuring that.

What I generally do is create a "home" or "welcome"
controller that simply
drives pages like about us, contact, directions, etc.  All of the URL
mappings are done in the routes file.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

-- 
Chris Stewart
compiledmonkey-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
http://www.compiledmonkey.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

> I''m wondering what the general consensus is for utilizing Apache
for the
> static content and only using Mongrel/WEBrick/etc for the Ruby code.  From
> the resource perspective, it''s a rather obvious choice.  From the
> development perspective, it''s not so clear.  I personally
don''t care to have
> Apache on my development machine and enjoy the flexibility of developing my
> projects across multiple computers.  To develop, all I need to do is
> checkout my code from Subversion and start a Mongrel instance.  No Apache
> config, etc.  My application is right there, complete, and ready to roll.
> If I had the Apache layer, I''d need to spend time configuring
that.
>
> What I generally do is create a "home" or "welcome"
controller that simply
> drives pages like about us, contact, directions, etc.  All of the URL
> mappings are done in the routes file.
>
> What are your thoughts on this subject?
Why do you need apache for development? Mongrel will serve up static files 
and Rails just fine...

I used to develop "mongrel only" quite a bit.  I don''t now,
but that''s for
reason completely outside of this...

-philip

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---