David Masover wrote:
[...]
> The supposed technical advantages of Passenger are that you're building 
> on
> Apache, 

Sort of, although I think you can use it with Nginx and Thin.

> that it's actually somewhat production-ready

Strike the "somewhat".

> but doesn't require
> complex reverse proxies, 

Right.  It also doesn't require clustered Mongrels.  It's about as easy 
to set up as mod_php.

> 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).

> 
> I'm curious, actually... I get why people might choose thin (really 
> quick
> responses, so no real multitasking required -- keep it simple), mongrel 
> (old-
> ish and proven), unicorn (simple, reliable, prefork is proven), ebb (C 
> for
> speed, and threads may be more efficient than forking), etc etc.
> 
> 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.

> over these, other than 
> simplicity of
> deployment. 

Not app deployment so much as configuration.  It really is about as easy 
to set up as mod_php.  I don't know of any other Rails/Rack server setup 
for which that can be said.


> 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.

Didn't 37signals switch to Passenger some time ago?

Best,
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen / marnen.org
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.