Jérémy Lecour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Tying a Rack app to unicorn is totally, completely wrong and defeats the
> > point of Rack.
>
> I completely agree with that statement.
>
> However, having an app with hard dependency on a specific app server
> is not the same a providing a default setup for a given app server.
>
> For example, an app like Gitlab, Discourse or whatever might provide a
> default good configuration for Unicorn, a set of optimisations in the
> context of a Unicorn (pre/post fork instructions…) and have something
> that works great out of the box, even if it's not restricted to
> Unicorn.
Right, Debian has Recommends/Suggests: fields for soft dependencies; but
I still consider that overkill.
> Someone who would want to change to Passenger, Puma or else would have
> to adapt the configuration and port the optimizations, but the app
> would work the same as with Unicorn, without crippled features.
> Someone who wouldn't change or tweak anything would have a good
> setting by default.
Perhaps there could be per-server Debian packages such as:
gitlab-webrick (should be the default)
gitlab-puma
gitlab-passenger
gitlab-unicorn
...
Given unicorn has always required the use of nginx for exposure to
public clients, unicorn is perhaps the worst choice as a default
server for people unwilling to read documentation and edit config
files.
--
unsubscribe: [email protected]
archive: http://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/
