Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?
We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer from
someone on the development team.
What is IIS?
On Dec 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, John D. wrote:
Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer.
Do any of those references refer to Rack? I think that’s the issue any
more. I’m pretty sure that if you can host a Rack application on IIS,
then you can host Rails.
I’ve never tried, because I’ve never needed to. I last used IIS in the
late 90s, and I’m pretty sure it’s changed a lot since then, but at the
time, it was in principle trying very hard to ape the Apache conventions
so as to ease uptake. Things like .htaccess and CGI and address
rewriting were designed to be fairly transferable from one environment
to the other.
What is your use-case that is binding you to IIS?
Walter
Kevin B. wrote in post #1036546:
What is IIS?
Your are kidding, right?
On 13 December 2011 17:16, John D. [email protected] wrote:
Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?
Was it ever alive?! :-/
We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer.
hmmm… maybe the situation looks dire for IIS? Are you somehow
constrained to IIS for your web application?
On 13 Dec 2011 17:31, “John D.” [email protected] wrote:
Kevin B. wrote in post #1036546:
What is IIS?
Your are kidding, right?
Why should he be?
This is a Rails list; if you asked on a .Net list whether C# apps could
be
deployed with Passenger, some people there might ask what ‘Passenger’ is
:-/
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Michael P. [email protected]
wrote:
constrained to IIS for your web application?
I tried on IIS about 1.5 years ago… hey, not sure but I hear the
folks
at Bloomberg.com develop rails on windows, not sure if they deploy to
windows but maybe that is a lead. But really my experience was a
nightmare
trying to deploy on windows.
On 13 December 2011 17:31, DK [email protected] wrote:
not sure but I hear the folks at
Bloomberg.com develop rails on windows, not sure if they deploy to windows
but maybe that is a lead. But really my experience was a nightmare trying to
deploy on windows.
“Windows” is not necessarily “IIS” - it’s perfectly possible to deploy
on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
the OP… that’s likely to be much harder.
I appreciate the answers, but, why is everyone asking about my business
case for IIS?
Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
committed to Microsoft technology. I don’t want to get into an argument
over merits of Apache versus IIS but corporate policy perceives Apache
as a quirky open source thing that poses a security risk. Having to
manually keep it up to date and the relatively large volume of security
bulletins appear to have contributed to this perception.
Walter, its not about Rack. There is a 10 steps document which doesn’t
work and there are links to FastCGI and RubyForIIS which no longer
appear to be available. I guess I’m asking whethere there exists an
up-to-date and working Rails ISAPI module for IIS.
On 13 December 2011 17:40, Michael P. [email protected] wrote:
This is a Rails list; if you asked on a .Net list whether C# apps could be
deployed with Passenger, some people there might ask what ‘Passenger’ is :-/
/s/Passenger/Nginx
…would probably be a better equivalent 
Michael P. wrote in post #1036557:
On 13 December 2011 17:31, DK [email protected] wrote:
“Windows” is not necessarily “IIS” - it’s perfectly possible to deploy
on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
the OP… that’s likely to be much harder.
I am aware that you can install Apache on Windows and that may be an
option if I can persuade (using appropriate supportable arguments)
someone to approve it. Looking at some of the comments I Have come
across on other forums, they seem to concur with your last statement
that setting up on IIS is (or at least was at the time) rather complex.
However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
practical).
On 13 December 2011 17:56, John D. [email protected] wrote:
I appreciate the answers, but, why is everyone asking about my business
case for IIS?
Because you’re telling us about a problem you have, and we’re asking
you to back-up a little…
Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
committed to Microsoft technology.
Well, then you won’t be using Rails, as it’s not MS technology, and
you would be breaching your corporate policy if you did.
Alternatively, if you can meet your “policy” by using Windows servers,
but other software (like Apache, or even a *nix VM running on a
Windows-based hypervisor…) then Rails may be an option.
over merits of Apache versus IIS but corporate policy perceives Apache
as a quirky open source thing that poses a security risk.
As opposed to quirky closed source things that pose security risks?!
Sounds like you have a management-education problem
Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken. Is Rails on IIS dead?We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer.
-- Miquel C. Escarré http://railsdynamics.blogspot.com +34 699 73 22 46 [email protected]
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Ruby on Rails: Talk” group.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Dec 13, 2011, at 11:09 AM, John D. wrote:
across on other forums, they seem to concur with your last statement
that setting up on IIS is (or at least was at the time) rather complex.
However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
practical).
seems that there is a language or perception issue too.
IIS is not any more ‘native’ than Apache…
IIS is a Microsoft supplied application/service and Apache is not.
But they both can and do run on Windows so they are both ‘native’
There are few who develop RoR applications on Windows and thus there
isn’t a great amount of resources for Windows developers which has only
been made worse by the fact that RoR has been a fast moving framework.
The same holds true for deployment - perhaps even more so because of the
reliance upon things like passenger.
I seem to recall that various versions of mongrel were possible for
Windows IIS and thus would permit you to deploy but I don’t know that
they have been updated for Windows recently.
At any rate, you could probably use IIS to proxy connections to Apache
running on other ports and thus have IIS servicing all port 80 traffic.
Craig
Michael P. wrote in post #1036562:
On 13 December 2011 17:56, John D. [email protected] wrote:
Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
committed to Microsoft technology.Well, then you won’t be using Rails, as it’s not MS technology, and
you would be breaching your corporate policy if you did.
Well, let’s just say that Ruby/Rails appears to be the natural way to
move on from Perl, but that’s another argument…
As opposed to quirky closed source things that pose security risks?!
But at least we have Windows Update Services which ticks the relevant
box niceley…
Sounds like you have a management-education problem
Its an all eggs in one basket contract leading to a management-brainwash
problem
On Dec 13, 5:16pm, John D. [email protected] wrote:
Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer.
These guys were asking for feedback / testing on their rails on IIS
deployment solution a few months ago :
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d5bce3a24648c991/f97652ab21d5ce28?lnk=gst&q=iis#f97652ab21d5ce28
Fred
On 13 December 2011 18:09, John D. [email protected] wrote:
However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
practical).
Well, that’s understandable, and you have my sympathy (I left your
type of role for freelancing a few years ago, and was very glad to
leave the worst of the corporate politics behind
So; trying to be impartial [1], you have two choices. Stick to the
corporate policy. and develop in .Net MVC (I’m afraid I can’t even
pass comment, because I’ve not been near it), or explain about the
increased RoI, opportunity costs, workforce happiness, and other
benefits of working with Rails.
Flipping the questions around: what’s making you think that you would
like to commence your development with RoR? Do you have existing
skills in house?
PS I know of all sorts of large corporates that run Rails projects:
Virgin Media, the BBC, BaeSystems, among others… if it’s good enough
for them, then maybe your bosses will reconsider whether it’ll do for
you
[1] but not succeeding, I’m afraid 
On Dec 13, 2:16pm, John D. [email protected] wrote:
Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer.
Please look into Helicon Zoo:
http://www.helicontech.com/zoo/
It contains a Rack-based IIS adapter. I believe requires Ruby 1.9.2
minimum and work with IIS and IIS Express
The previous versions of Ruby/Rails for IIS will not work mainly
because:
Luis L.
On Dec 15, 5:09am, Michael P. [email protected] wrote:
On 15 December 2011 07:41, Pieter H. [email protected] wrote:
Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
Have heard the same from others.Is that difference as noticeable if you run your Windows development
machine in “production” mode?..
The performance difference is in startup, not execution. Code load and
reload (during dev) slower on Windows than Linux, and is due how Ruby
C code is implemented.
Once the application starts performance is very good.
I’ve blogged about my presentation at RubyConf Argentina:
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2011/11/26/rubyconf-argentina-and-fenix/
(Sorry, slides are in spanish)
And someone blogged about the work I mention there before:
Luis L.
Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
Have heard the same from others.
Pieter H.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs