Thin?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Charles Roper
Jun 3, 2010, 6:17:32 AM6/3/10
to stati...@googlegroups.com
Will it be possible to use Thin with Staticmatic, now that it's using Rack?
Charles
Stephen Bartholomew
Jun 3, 2010, 6:22:18 AM6/3/10
to StaticMatic
It will be yeah. I swapped in webrick to replace mongrel as default
so making it configurable will be simple. Webrick will become default
because it's bundled with ruby and wont require any additional
dependencies.
However, can I just ask why you'd prefer thin over webrick? As you're
only really using in development, I had thought webrick would be
fine.
Steve
so making it configurable will be simple. Webrick will become default
because it's bundled with ruby and wont require any additional
dependencies.
However, can I just ask why you'd prefer thin over webrick? As you're
only really using in development, I had thought webrick would be
fine.
Steve
Charles Roper
Jun 3, 2010, 1:57:42 PM6/3/10
to stati...@googlegroups.com
On 03/06/2010 11:22, Stephen Bartholomew wrote:
> However, can I just ask why you'd prefer thin over webrick? As you're
> only really using in development, I had thought webrick would be
> fine.
> However, can I just ask why you'd prefer thin over webrick? As you're
> only really using in development, I had thought webrick would be
> fine.
Well, even in development, I need all the speed I can get. I'm
constantly refreshing (using XRefresh) and the more responsive the local
server, the better. Also, Ruby is slower on Windows than it is on *nix
based systems, so even more need for a speed bump.
Having said that, I am just assuming Thin is faster than WEBrick in
development. Do you know if that assumption is correct? Thin might just
do concurrency faster, right?
Charles
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages