From: David Masover Date: 2009-11-26T06:51:45+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby a good choice for CGI? On Wednesday 25 November 2009 03:00:49 pm Judson Lester wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:52 PM, David Masover wrote: > > Granted, but when I talk to people using Passenger, the #1 reason they > > tell me > > is ease of deployment -- the idea that you'd just FTP up a file into a > > certain > > directory to restart your app. > > > > To my mind, Passenger's appeal is that it embeds Rack in Apache - so you > > get the benefits of mod_ruby (not restarting the interpreter with each > request) I'm confused. Wasn't mod_ruby the one which restarts the interpreter with each request? I also don't know of _any_ Rack handler that restarts the interpreter with each request. The supposed technical advantages of Passenger are that you're building on Apache, that it's actually somewhat production-ready but doesn't require complex reverse proxies, and it has something to do with Ruby Enterprise Edition. I'm curious, actually... I get why people might choose thin (really quick responses, so no real multitasking required -- keep it simple), mongrel (old- ish and proven), unicorn (simple, reliable, prefork is proven), ebb (C for speed, and threads may be more efficient than forking), etc etc. I don't really see the case for Passenger over these, other than simplicity of deployment. Am I missing anything?