mod_rails aka mod_rack aka mod_ruby
grzegorz.nosek at gmail.com
Fri Jun 6 14:01:34 MSD 2008
On czw, cze 05, 2008 at 10:34:01 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
> >AIUI, mod_wsgi isn't a universal module but is mostly useful for
> >embedding rather simple Python code into nginx.
> Right, but of course we must agree on what "simple" means.
Yeah, maybe 'simple' was the wrong word, it probably should be
'low-level' or 'specialised'.
> >I remember asking Manlio some time ago about it and he said (more or
> >less) that embedding e.g. Django via mod_wsgi would be pretty insane,
> >so I think it would hold twice as true for e.g. Rails.
> Yes, usually it is insane, for several reasons.
> Django (like Ruby on Rails, and other very high level framework) have
> the "problem" on hide low level details.
> This is fine, but this also means that you can write code that it is
> easy to write but completely inefficient.
True, and while it's a moderate problem when the app server is
standalone, it can become a major bottleneck when embedded into the web
> >Of course, I'd like to be proven wrong and hopefully Manlio will step in
> >to correct me. :)
> Unfortunately this question does not have an easy answer.
> You should really make good tests.
> Fortunately know we have many good implementations of WSGI so that we
> can test an application in several environments:
> Apache mod_wsgi, Nginx mod_wsgi, and so.
Yes, but this means that you cannot drop any random application into
nginx. And safely running web apps over which I have little control is
essential for me.
Basically, it's the whole point of my argument against mod_ruby for
nginx -- it'll never be as flexible as a standalone server.
OTOH, one thing I'd love to see would be something like a full-blown Lua
interpreter as a configuration parser.
More information about the nginx