Hi all, good to see you on mailing list again. This really amused me: "I also think that it might not be worth delaying 1.1 to add unicorn support."
Good joke. The 1.1 can't be significantly delayed by adding unicorn adapter. Because it already has delay about a year or so. Really, the 1.1 promised many things and almost none of it was delivered. One of the crucial part of 1.1 is 1.9.1 support. Tell me how you want to provide out of box support on 1.9.1 if you defaults to Mongrel which doesn't run on the 1.9.1? The idea of Merb adapters is that user can use server he wants by just using the switch. Latest patch in 1.1 even allows you to set your adapter in the init so you can use thin and don't need to type merb -a thin all the time. Current 1.1.0.pre version is ready to ship to the public for testing and once Martin solve last issue with merb-stack app, we're going to push it to Gemcutter. Developers and users are frustrated with lack of production release, bugfixes, and communication. On the removing whole master/worker stuff and maybe also the class reloading which can be now solved outside Merb I totally agree with Nicholas. My opinion is that it really shouldn't go to the 1.2. It should not go to any of 1.x versions because it breaks the API. And one thing we tried hard to keep was API during work on 1.1.0.pre. We wanted to remove many things from Merb but because of spec10 must pass for 1.x we can't. So for me it really is what you want to do with Merb? Because what would be the best IMHO, is to release 1.1.0. as we have it now with Unicorn. To provide good working release on 1.9.1 and compatible with spec10. And start working on Merb 2.0 (and yes I never liked statement Merb 2 == Rails 3). In Merb 2.0 we can easily break API, we can drop spec10 and use current spec as frozen API state. Than we can remove bootstraping, change router, bring merb much closer to Rack and all integrate all the cool stuff which just emerge lately. If all this sounds a bit angry, it is. And also it's the point of view of someone who don't need/want to migrate to R3. Pavel On Nov 6, 10:23 pm, Matt Aimonetti <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 Passenger 3 is also coming up with lots of goodies. > > - Matt > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Nicholas Orr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah I'd aim for 1.2 and getting rid of the bootstrap stuff. > > > Merb doesn't need to handle forking master/worker stuff anymore... > > There are tools available that can do this. > > > Imho it make sense to make merb work with rack up like sinatra. That > > way if someone else comes up with a new way to run rack apps merb > > works out of the box, rather than having to implement special support > > for in merb for the new tool. > > > Nick > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Matt Aimonetti <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Whatever, changing such a critical aspect of Merb right before a major > > > release doesn't seem wise at all. > > > My suggestion: release 1.1, and play with unicorn in a separate > > > branch/trunk. Once it's ready and you know it's reliable and better than > > the > > > existing solution, then push a new release. > > > > - Matt > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> Unicorn is by far less buggy then the current > > forking/master/worker > > >> stuff in merb. I say go for unicorn support. > > > >> -Ezra > > > >> On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > > >> > I agree > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Matt Aimonetti < > > [email protected] > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > I think that making unicorn the default adapter is not a very good > > >> > idea. > > >> > It still has lots of bugs and should be handled with caution. > > > >> > I also think that it might not be worth delaying 1.1 to add unicorn > > >> > support. > > > >> > - Matt > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Pavel Kunc <[email protected]> > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > Unicorn support could come earlier than 1.2. I'd like to bundle it > > >> > with the 1.1 if possible because it would allow out of box 1.9.1 > > >> > experience. I'd also made unicorn as default adapter. So I think we > > >> > can try for now to write unicorn adapter and just plug unicorn to merb > > >> > the same way as other servers. > > > >> > We can than decide what to do with the bootstraping. > > > >> > Pavel > > > >> > On Nov 6, 3:17 am, Yehuda Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > I would be in favor of removing the Merb bootstrap stuff in favor of > > >> > > unicorn, which is basically the same code but made more generic. > > > >> > > We could do that for 1.2 for sure. > > > >> > > -- Yehuda > > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Nicholas Orr > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > I had a go at running merb via unicorn and had the same > > >> > experience. > > > >> > > > My guess was that because merb does it's own bootstrap stuff then > > >> > > > launches (forks?) thin/mongrel - this is where running with > > >> > unicorn > > >> > > > falls over. > > > >> > > > As you can see in the unicorn_rails start script it is very > > >> > different > > >> > > > from the unicorn script and basically satisfies rails way of doing > > >> > > > things. > > > >> > > > One thing I didn't try was starting with a working passenger > > >> > config.ru > > >> > > > - that may have resulted in a working solution... > > > >> > > > A goal of 1.2 might be have merb behave more rack like so one > > >> > could > > >> > > > use rackup - then merb could slot into everything (middlewares, > > >> > rack > > >> > > > stack) else rather than the current situation that everything > > >> > can slot > > >> > > > into merb... > > > >> > > > Nick > > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM, scottmotte > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > Hi guys, > > > >> > > > > Any thoughts on why using unicorn to run merb would quickly > > >> > load up > > >> > > > > the merb app, close it down, then respawn and try again - and > > >> > then > > >> > > > > repeat that over and over again. > > > >> > > > > The config.ru file is the same I'd use for thin, and I'm on > > >> > the latest > > >> > > > > Merb 1.1 from wycats github. > > > >> > > > > #my config.ru > > >> > > > > require 'merb-core' > > >> > > > > Merb::Config.setup(:merb_root => ".", :environment => > > >> > ENV['RACK_ENV']) > > >> > > > > Merb.environment = Merb::Config[:environment] > > >> > > > > Merb.root = Merb::Config[:merb_root] > > >> > > > > Merb::BootLoader.run > > > >> > > > > use Merb::Rack::Static, Merb.dir_for(:public) > > >> > > > > run Merb::Rack::Application.new > > > >> > > > > # if you want to try unicorn yourself. > > >> > > > > The command to setup and run unicorn is: > > >> > > > > sudo gem install unicorn > > >> > > > > cd yourapp > > >> > > > > unicorn # alternatively to try on a rails app it's > > >> > 'unicorn_rails' > > > >> > > > > I'm asking this in the unicorn forum too. > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Yehuda Katz > > >> > > Developer | Engine Yard > > >> > > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > > >> > -- > > >> > Yehuda Katz > > >> > Developer | Engine Yard > > >> > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > > >> Ezra Zygmuntowicz > > >> [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
