On Apr 22, 10:08 pm, Xdmx X. [email protected]
wrote:
Hi, thanks for every answers 
Just the last one.
What happen if there are 3 apps with 3 different rails versions
(freezed)? Will be 3 different framework handlers for each version
Yes.
or
less because they merge some common stuff (actually this one would be
very hard i think)?
No magical merging happens. Thatās pretty much impossible to pull off.
Ok, this is the real last one, is it the same to have rails freezed or
used the one installed in the system? or does mod_rails works
differently (as performance or others)?
Thanks
No. If you use a system-wide Rails gem, then different Rails
applications will be able to share the framework code. If you freeze
Rails (vendorize it) then thatās not possible, and each application
will use its own framework.
Okā¦this is really really the last Will your ruby branch be
available like a gem or some other ways ? (= something really fast to
install and config which would not compromise everything in the worst
caseā¦like mod_rails )
Weāll provide an easy-to-use installer. 
A lot of emphasis will be
on āeasyā.
Hongli L. wrote:
On Apr 15, 9:06ĆÆĀæĀ½pm, Xdmx X. [email protected]
wrote:
Hi Xdmx.
Sorry for the late reply, weāve been getting swamped with work lately,
and I havenāt had time to reply until today.
Hi, thanks for every answers
Just the last one.
What happen if there are 3 apps with 3 different rails versions
(freezed)? Will be 3 different framework handlers for each version or
less because they merge some common stuff (actually this one would be
very hard i think)?
Ok, this is the real last one, is it the same to have rails freezed or
used the one installed in the system? or does mod_rails works
differently (as performance or others)?
Thanks
Okā¦this is really really the last Will your ruby branch be
available like a gem or some other ways ? (= something really fast to
install and config which would not compromise everything in the worst
caseā¦like mod_rails )
Some people believe mod_rails would be better served by using rack
ā¦
yeah the idea is for this to be merged into rails proper once it is
complete and tested, the core team knows of my work and says it will
make it in once it is done. As far as mod_rails goesā¦ I think they
made a huge mistake by not using rack as their interface, so Iād hope
they will realize this and add rack support. mod_rubinius is all rack
based and will be able to run any ruby framework or simple rack
handlers you can throw at it.
ā¦
-Ezra
http://brainspl.at/articles/2008/04/25/hey-rails-nice-rack
ChessMess wrote:
http://modrails.com/
Mod_Rails is out, so what do you think?
Nirvana would be, seeing as you can limit it to say 4 processes per
rails app.
Say you get 16 simultaneous requestsānirvana would be that they would
all get sent to the same apache threads, so that it didnāt unnecessarily
use up apache threads all waiting on railsā existing processes to
finish. Like a flood to a single rails app wouldnāt distract from other
traffic.
That would be awesome! Iād be able to sleep at night knowing rails is
not hurting others on my shared host.
-R
On May 15, 5:48 pm, Roger P. [email protected]
wrote:
Nirvana would be, seeing as you can limit it to say 4 processes per
rails app.
Say you get 16 simultaneous requestsānirvana would be that they would
all get sent to the same apache threads, so that it didnāt unnecessarily
use up apache threads all waiting on railsā existing processes to
finish. Like a flood to a single rails app wouldnāt distract from other
traffic.
That would be awesome! Iād be able to sleep at night knowing rails is
not hurting others on my shared host.
You can. In the development version.
Hongli L. wrote:
If the FrameworkSpawner is running, then spawning time will decrease
significantly. The framework will not have to be loaded at all - only
the application code will have to be loaded.
Is there a way to force a FrameworkSpawner to start when Apache starts?
Would you need one or multiple instances?
Is there a inactivity timeout on the FrameworkSpawner once started?
Richard