[typo] Deploying Ruby on Rails Applications (was: Re: Can't update feeds?)
chet at nogators.com
Wed Jul 16 18:47:34 EDT 2008
On Jul 16, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Scott Likens wrote:
>> Honestly, all of it. I know that's a broad answer, but it's the
>> truth. Compare the installation experience of a LAMP stack tool to
>> Typo's and you'll see the huge gap.
>> In particular, deeper descriptions of why Mongrel needs to be
>> involved, what the alternatives to a Mongrel configuration are, and
>> why one might choose one approach over the other are ALL questions
>> that need to be addressed. I made that clear in my prior post.
> We are comparing an Apple to a Pear, LAMP is not the same as LAMR or
> a Ruby on Rails install. Please stop comparing it, you are doing
> nothing useful by doing that.
Are you really saying you can't compare a Ruby app with a LAMP app?
That's ridiculous. How else can someone decide between Typo and MT and
WP and etc?
No, you're just wrong. It makes PERFECT sense to compare the
experience of setting up and using Application X with that of using
Application Y if both X and Y are competitors in the same market
(i.e., blogging software).
> What is mongrel? Let's see here if this quote satisfy's you.
> "Mongrel is a small library that provides a very fast HTTP 1.1
> server for Ruby web applications. It is not particular to any
> framework, and is intended to be just enough to get a web
> application running behind a more complete and robust web server.
> What makes Mongrel so fast is the careful use of an Ragel extension
> to provide fast, accurate HTTP 1.1 protocol parsing. This makes the
> server scream without too many portability issues.
> See mongrel.rubyforge.org for more information. "
> A bit technical, but Mongrel is a Web Server. Like Apache, or nginx
> or lighttpd. Except that all it cares about and knows about is the
> application in which it is running. Technically you can run it on
> port 80 (if you run it as root) and remove the whole extra web
> server from the equation. Mongrel is for Ruby what mod_php is for
> Rails (bad analogy). It does all the dirty work and forwards the
> end product to Apache and then to the end-user. You can compare it
> to Tomcat or Jetty I guess, however that's not here nor there.
Why on earth would you need to run a second web server? That seems
like a really bad idea, frankly, hence my annoyance that the most
obvious question (which boils down to "WTF?", essentially) isn't
> Frédéric has pretty much gone into the other problems you addressed.
> However, the best method of updating/upgrading typo depends on the
> Let's say you use SQLite3
> 1) backup your databases in db/ to a separate location
> 2) unarchive the new version of typo in a separate directory (for
> staging or testing purposes).
> 3) copy the backed up databases (do not move them, we want to keep a
> pristine copy still somewhere) to db/
> 4) verify you are using the proper environment (e.g. PRODUCTION /
> DEVELOPMENT ...) and then run rake db:migrate
What does rake do in this context?
> 5) start typo on a different port then the original typo is running
> 6) Browse to the site by ip:port and verify if everything worked as
> planned, and if it did not discuss how it did not work properly, and
> if it did work how it can work easier.
> Of course you'll have to reinstall your plugins and themes.
To put it mildly, that's a bit bizarre and very unfriendly to the user.
> I believe as a standard practice
Maybe for Typo. Not for anything else I use.
"When you've got an RV, a jet pack, and a monkey you really don't need
much actual content" - KS
More information about the Typo-list