Carl Youngblood wrote:
> Ara Howard has converted me to the benefits of fastcgi for Ruby.  It's 
> much faster than even mod_ruby and it is easier to implement on a wide 
> variety of systems.  I'm pretty sure you can get fastcgi to interface 
> with Ruby on Windows, though it is somewhat difficult.  I was able to 
> compile fastcgi support into Apache on Windows but finally decided to 
> stop kicking against the pricks and develop on linux, since all my apps 
> are deployed in a unix-based environment anyways and I was spending more 
> time trying to set things up than I was developing software.  Although I 
> do very much agree that if we had easier windows solutions it would do a 
> lot for promoting ruby.
> 
> Carl Youngblood

Another note on FastCGI: the great thing about FastCGI is that it's 
compatible with the CGI interface. If you are having difficulty getting 
mod_fastcgi to work on Windows, you can test your program using normal 
CGI. And then when the program is deployed, be amazed by the 100x speed 
increase! (Okay, not always 100x, but... :-)

The bad thing about FastCGI is also that it's compatible with CGI 
interface. Meaning you can't do stuffs that are beyond CGI (mucking 
around server's internals, for one). But for many applications, CGI is 
enough.

-- 
dave