From: Patrick May <patrick@...>
Date: 2005-09-19T10:13:46+09:00
Subject: Re: narf

Hello,

On Sep 17, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

> any strong evidence that it is faster than the built-in cgi.rb?

That's interesting, I haven't tested it.  I've tested narf on  
different platforms using the webunit test suite, but I haven't  
compared it with the original cgi.rb.  I'll take a look at it tonight.

I have seen that the difference btw cgi and fastcgi/mod_ruby is an  
almost an order of magnitude.  That's the most direct way to improve  
your web performance.

Also, narf is being deprecated.  I have been taking a look at the  
api, breaking what needs breaking, and putting together something new  
and yummy, check it out http://ruby-web.org/.

I've been quiet for a while.  I made my commitment to set aside a few  
broken aspects of the api, and I want to make sure I have strong  
installers for ruby-web.  The ruby-web beta should be released by the  
end of the week.

My plan is to improve the low end of ruby web development.  Rails is  
doing a great job with the application framework area, I just want to  
get the basics in order.

Cheers,

Patrick

ps if you have patches for the old release of narf, let me know.   
Though the future is ruby-web, I'm still maintaining the last release.