On Sun, Oct 22, 2006, Erik Hollensbe wrote: > I think it would be in your best interest to investigate a HTTPd for > its merits regardless of the stellar RoR support before settling with > something. Mongrel may be nice for getting a fast start at deploying > your static content, but as soon as you are in need of a PHP app, > sublime access features, or even static pages, you will find yourself > making the choice all over again.
Mongrel is not intended to be a standalone httpd. It can be used as one, but it's pretty uncommon. Running a Rails app under mongrel makes mongrel behave in a non-concurrent fashion, so you deploy under multiple mongrels in the common case. My point is, there's no reason to be down on mongrel for the reasons you state. It's meant for Ruby apps and it does it extremely well. Apache proxying to mongrel is a stellar environment and highly recommended. Which is pretty much to say "yes, Erik is right, learn Apache, but then use mongrel anyway... with apache" ;) Ben _______________________________________________ PDXRuby mailing list [email protected] IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
