From: Ghassen SMIDA Date: 2012-10-10T02:37:47+09:00 Subject: Re: Changing the default extension of Ruby Thank you for responding but changing the web host is not a solution because I've got many other advantages for that price there is no provider and I already paid a year of subscription (it's a well known one) but if I find a solution for this and for running rails on it becomes the paradise. Jeremy Bopp wrote in post #1079109: > On 10/09/2012 07:32 AM, Nathan Ahmed wrote: >> >> Hassan is quite correct > > While I agree on this point, I suspect that the workaround may actually > be pretty simple. More than likely, this is a scenario where the script > is running as a CGI script. If so, the only .rb files that need special > attention are the ones directly executed in that mode by the web server. > > It should be sufficient to rename those CGI scripts with a .pl extension > and ensure that the shebang line is set correctly in each of them to run > them with a Ruby interpreter. Files being required in by those scripts > shouldn't need any extension change since the Ruby interpreter is in > control of loading them, not the web server. > > For the Windows development environment, it should be easy enough to set > the file association for .pl files to be run by a Ruby interpreter. > That will allow relatively easy testing of the CGI scripts under Windows > without renaming them to have the .rb extension. This is pretty ugly to > do though and may lead to confusion later if you ever need to install > Perl interpreter. > > All that said, it shouldn't be a difficult matter for the hosting > provider to modify the web server configuration to allow running .rb > files as CGI scripts. If the hosting provider balks at doing so while > allowing you to hack around and use a Ruby interpreter under the covers, > you should probably consider carefully if you really want trust with any > meaningful operation. > > Just my $0.02. ;-) > > -Jeremy -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.