On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:31:46PM -0800, Preston Crawford wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:39:56AM -0800, Ben Bleything wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005, Preston Crawford wrote: > >> > This is precisely my problem with Rails right now. It may be easy to > >> use, > >> > but why can't I just setup a stand-alone Rails app server? This > >> increasing > >> > complexity, needing to run two web servers on my home box? That's > >> > craziness. > >> > >> You can, it's called webrick. No other framework or language I've > >> worked with has a built-in application server. Maybe java does, but PHP > >> and perl certainly don't. > > > > All of the J2EE stuff I've used has included HTTP in the application > > server. > > > > I initially found it hopelessly annoying. :) I came to appreciate it > > after a year or so of working with it. > > Exactly. You can kick off Tomcat and you don't need Apache. And it can run > as a service on port 80 if you want. This is the kind of simplicity that > would help Rails be easier to deploy in small-scale situations (which is > where much development, poking, proding, etc. happens.)
Hmmm. I find that lighttpd+FCGI meets this need pretty effectively for me, especially since Rails now supports generating simple lighttpd config files. It's another dependency, yes, but I don't think it's any worse than Tomcat or even Jetty. I still use WEBrick for development, but only because my development systems are heavyweight enough that speed isn't a problem. It's nice to know the code works in different environments, too. -- Keegan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CEO, Producer the basement productions http://www.thebasement.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ PDXRuby mailing list [email protected] IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
