Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ruby"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == Ruby on Rails on | + | == Ruby on Rails on AOLserver? == |
Any thoughts or ideas on whether [http://www.rubyonrails.org Ruby on Rails] would work with the nsruby module? --[[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 10:28, 9 December 2005 (EST) | Any thoughts or ideas on whether [http://www.rubyonrails.org Ruby on Rails] would work with the nsruby module? --[[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 10:28, 9 December 2005 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * What would be the point? Rails already includes a Ruby-based HTTP listener that's closely integrated with Rails. You would get no performance benefit from putting AOLserver in front of Rails, as Rails is all single-threaded so requests get processed in serial, as I understand it. If you wanted to accelerate a Rails app, I'd front it with a load balancing switch and run a bunch of Rails listeners. But, that'd mean Rails couldn't keep in-memory state information unless you want to run the switch in sticky-session mode, which is lame. ''-- [[User:Dossy|Dossy]] 07:50, 10 December 2005 (EST)'' | ||
Revision as of 12:50, 10 December 2005
Ruby on Rails on AOLserver?
Any thoughts or ideas on whether Ruby on Rails would work with the nsruby module? --Caveman 10:28, 9 December 2005 (EST)
- What would be the point? Rails already includes a Ruby-based HTTP listener that's closely integrated with Rails. You would get no performance benefit from putting AOLserver in front of Rails, as Rails is all single-threaded so requests get processed in serial, as I understand it. If you wanted to accelerate a Rails app, I'd front it with a load balancing switch and run a bunch of Rails listeners. But, that'd mean Rails couldn't keep in-memory state information unless you want to run the switch in sticky-session mode, which is lame. -- Dossy 07:50, 10 December 2005 (EST)
