

No True "mod_ruby" Is Damaging Ruby's Viability On The Web - pius
http://www.rubyinside.com/no-true-mod_ruby-is-damaging-rubys-viability-on-the-web-693.html

======
Zak
I just deployed two applications for a client using mod_ruby and eruby. You
can just upload rhtml files, and they just work. I may be missing something
here, but it seems to me that you _can_ use mod_ruby just like mod_php.

Is this the best way to develop most applications? Probably not, but it's good
for simple, quick and dirty projects. I'm a big fan of the application
continuously running inside the web server as is usually done with
Hunchentoot.

~~~
jamesbritt
> but it seems to me that you can use mod_ruby just like mod_php.

If two apps are using the same Ruby instance, then they are sharing String,
Array, Integer, etc. And ObjectSpace. So one app can alter any class (say,
undefine or redefine to_s on something) and the other app will share those
changes.

mod_ruby runs all apps in the same Ruby process.

If the Web sites are pretty basic and not using any metaprogramming magic,
then maybe there will be no problem. If they are creating classes with the
same name, but different behavior, then maybe not so good.

~~~
Zak
That could be just a bit problematic. PHP doesn't have Ruby's metaprogramming
features, but it does have globals, classes and the like. How does it deal
with this issue?

------
dag
Couldn't you just use mod_lisp? It's not actually lisp-specific, IIRC.

~~~
Zak
You could also get the same effect using mod_proxy and not have to modify
mongrel or webrick to speak the mod_lisp protocol. mod_lisp doesn't solve the
problem as it requires a continuously running process to handle requests, and
per-app additions to the Apache config. You can't just upload the files and go
on typical shared hosting.

------
curi
"DHH's opinion appears to be that shared hosts should put up or shut up, but I
disagree"

Ugh. He said it should be solved by people who need a solution. He doesn't
used shared hosting, so it's not his priority.

