On Oct 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Ben Bleything wrote:
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" ;)
Yeah, I didn't mean it to sound like an Apache advertisement, nor was
I attempting to say anything derogatory about mongrel (I use it for
development myself).
--
Erik Hollensbe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
PDXRuby mailing list
[email protected]
IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net
http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
