[Mongrel] [SURVEY] MIME types questions for Mongrel 1.0 RC1

Jeroen Houben jeroen at supercool.nl
Thu Dec 7 14:42:25 EST 2006


David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
>>>> So, let's put this to the test:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Should Mongrel support a larger set of default mime types?
>>>
>>> I'm strongly in favor of this. Especially for core defaults like xml,
>>> atom, and rss. It would mean that Rails page caching would Just Work
>>> even for these common caching types.
>>
>> Could you explain this? Mongrel is very unlikely to serve cached pages.
>> That's usually handled by apache/lighty. I ran into this the other day
>> and had to adjust my apache rewrite rules to look for cached .xml files
>> rather than just .html files.
> 
> There are plenty of situations where the load requirements do not 
> dictate involving another web server. It'd be nice if Mongrel was 
> feature-wise capable of standing on its own. Mongrel is still capable of 
> serving hundreds of static files per second on most machines. That's 
> plenty for a large array of applications, including predominately 
> internal ones.

Okay that makes sense then.

I have never tried page caching with mongrel only. I know that on apache 
I need to add mod_rewrite rules for each mime-type/extension (or maybe 
there's a smarter way..) If I use the default rewrite rules a cached 
version of public/somecontroller/index.xml will never get served for 
instance, because it's looking for index.html.

You're saying page caching on a mongrel only setup will just work as 
long as the mime-types are properly configured?

Oh, and just out of curiosity, does 37 signals use mongrel or still lighty?

Jeroen


More information about the Mongrel-users mailing list