luislavena at gmail.com
Wed Dec 12 14:11:08 EST 2007
On Dec 12, 2007 3:55 PM, Evan Weaver <evan at cloudbur.st> wrote:
> I think 2) remove C Ragel is debatable. Didn't ry say that performance suffered?
How performance penalty was compared to 1.9? If we are going to bring
some changes to 1.9, we should start checking for big issues:
- native extensions need compilers.
- production servers don't have compilers, so some users do the
compile locally and generated a new platform-specific gem for their
- latest rubygems is broken is broken on windows (and I'm waiting eric
releases 0.9.5.1 to fix the damn thing).
> Also, you need
> 6) Merge mongrel_rails and mongrel::cluster into a less fussy mongrel
> runner, possibly removing gem_plugin in the process.
That could be splitted in several steps, you're trying to chum a lot
in just one bite.
mongrel_rails is another beast, and is the only one that uses
gem_plugins in its current form, so:
remove all the gem processing from mongrel, isn't our call to
workaround Kernel.require or depend on rubygems presence to work.
There are some users don't like rubygems, mostly due their memory load.
gem_plugin is great, but it have some issues since it "skip" some of
the rubygems functionality and try to do it manually.
Get a simpler configuration and plugabble mongrel_rails could be
A common mistake that people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate
the ingenuity of complete fools.
More information about the Mongrel-development