I dont think it is angry, u've raised a good point re spec10.
What you have laid out makes total sense and I'd love to see that as
the direction to go, thanks for paying attention to the details ;)

Nicholas

On 11/8/09, Pavel Kunc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to