david2 wrote: > This is all very confusing. I've been googling... It's not really all that confusing, you're just confusing it all.
> I see references to .erb files, .rhtml and .erb.html files. Sounds > like what I want to do can be done, but I don't get the impression its > done very often because it doesn't seem very easy nor straightforward. Embedded Ruby (.erb). Ruby HTML (.rhtml). The .rhtml is an older convention that isn't used so much in newer versions of Rails. The rendering engine (.erb) has been separated from the template format (.html). This eases support for handling multiple representations of pages. For example you might have a different layout for mobile devices. The newer convention would allow you to name the two layouts accordingly, such as index.html.erb & index.mobile.erb. The later could still be HTML, but formatted for mobile devices. Both still use Embedded Ruby. There are also other engines, such as builder (index.xml.builder) and Ruby JavaScript (index.js.rjs). I think where you might be getting confused is that in the case of PHP the "engine," or "intelligence," is wrapped up inside the Apache module. It's all that C code that really does the grunt work for PHP template rendering. > I've found instructions where you can manually create a ruby script > and a CGI command to run whatever extension you define in an Apache > config file. Its an amazingly manual configuration process. > > Does no one do this? Is it Ruby on Rails or bust? Can you use Ruby > template files, ie Ruby embedded in HTML on an Apache webserver or do > most folks just use PHP if this is needed and only use Ruby for web > applications? You don't seem to be listening to the earlier replies. It is by no means Ruby on Rails or bust! There are many options ranging from the most fundamental Rack application, through Sinatra and all the way up to Rails. As I said before, a lot of the "intelligence" of PHP is the Apache module itself. This might give you a false sense that PHP is simpler than a Ruby deployment. Maybe that's somewhat so, but it's also less flexible than something like Passenger Phusion (http://www.modrails.com/) + Rack (http://rack.rubyforge.org/). Phusion is a web interface that connects Apache (or Nginx) to any Rack application. A Rack application can be as simple as: class HelloWorld def call(env) [200, {"Content-Type" => "text/plain"}, ["Hello world!"]] end end If you just want to render some ERB templates then (as Frederick mentioned) Sinatra (http://www.sinatrarb.com/intro.html) is an excellent choice. Given that a lot (now most) Ruby frameworks and web servers are based on Rack there is a lot of choice in the Ruby world. This is not a bad thing! It allows us to scale our solutions to target specific needs. In your situation I would strongly suggest you look at Sinatra. I'm mean really look at it and not just glance at their home page. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
