On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:47:03 +0900, Gully Foyle wrote
> What are the pros & cons of mod_ruby vs fastcgi+ruby?  Ruby will 
> most likely be the latest stable snapshot (1.8.2).

mod_ruby:

+ Nice access to Apache internals.
+ Fast.
+ You can write handlers for Apache with it.  Handlers can let you do
  powerful things.
+ Eruby, if you like that.
+ Easy config.
- Interpreter is shared among all users of mod_ruby.  Potential for namespace
  clashes because of this.
- mod_ruby is an Apache specfic thing.  So your code isn't portable to
  other web server types.

fast_cgi:
+ A familiar, conventional CGI-like interface.
+ Fast.
+ Pretty easy to configure this, too, though there is more complexity to
  fine tuning it.
+ Many web servers support FastCGI, so your code is more portable.
+ Each seperate FastCGI application is in its own process so no namespace
  clashes possible between different applications.
- It IS more complex than mod_ruby.
- Don't have the same level of access to the web server internals.

It's six of one, a half dozen of the other, really.  Both work well.  Both 
can handle busy web sites with good performance and stability.  Is there a 
particular templating system or web development framework that you want to 
use?  If so, does it support both of these, or is it better with one of 
them?  Which one seems more interesting to you?  Can some of what you want 
to do be done via a handler?  Is it important to you to have your code 
portable to other web server software?

The answers to those questions may well point you toward one or the other.


Kirk Haines