[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"John Goulah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/16/2008 11:13:06 AM:
Why wouldn't you just use the standalone server bundled with
Catalyst? Fcgi is great for production, but the processes are
fairly thick memory wise, so having instances for each developer
could be an issue. We use the cat server for development and works
fine for about 5-10 people at any given time on a modest box (4G ram)
Could be a massive assumption, but usually when you go through the cost
(time, cap) of building out a dev server environment you want it to mirror
your production servers as much as possible so that you spend time
squishing bugs that may exist in your production environment -- not some
other different environment. If they are using FCGI in prod it makes
perfect sense to do so in dev. Why battle bugs that may be introduced on
the standalone server, or worse miss bugs that _do_ affect your production
environment because you are developing on a different environment?
Yes that did go through my mind. The dev machine should be the same spec
as the eventual live system
but as I have mentioned in other postings this was probably a fallacious
reason for using fast-cgi.
-Wade
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
