From: David Masover Date: 2009-11-27T12:10:10+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby a good choice for CGI? On Wednesday 25 November 2009 04:17:02 pm Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote: > David Masover wrote: > > that it's actually somewhat production-ready > > Strike the "somewhat". There's actually some debate about whether or not it can scale. Not something I'm particularly interested in at the moment, though. > > and it has something to do with Ruby Enterprise > > Edition. > > It's written by the same people, and I believe it can take advantage of > some Ruby EE optimizations. But you can use it just as well with MRI > (although I'm not sure why you would -- EE is much faster). Is there an EE for 1.9 yet? Depending on your app, 1.9.1 may be much faster. > > I don't really see the case for Passenger > > Incredible ease of configuration, EE optimizations. AFAIK, Passenger > has no serious competition on either of these points. Capistrano is pretty easy, but that's my opinion. But if I use Ruby EE, Unicorn does the exact same thing, while remaining much more loosely coupled from the webserver. > > over these, other than > > simplicity of > > deployment. > > Not app deployment so much as configuration. Configuration is part of deployment. Any serious shop really should have a task set up for building the entire stack, including the load balancer. > > Am I missing anything? > > You're missing just about everything. :) Personally, I'm not sure what > the case *against* Passenger is, unless you're using Windows or JRuby. Complexity. Plus, it used to require Apache... I suppose a bigger case against it is that it seems like Unicorn can do all of that, but be far more static-server-agnostic -- I can run it by itself on a port, or with nginx via a Unix socket. > Didn't 37signals switch to Passenger some time ago? Yeah, that doesn't really impress me. The important question is why they chose it -- I linked to an article, not just about Github using nginx+unicorn, but _why_ they did, and why that looks to me like a good idea.