Aria Stewart
4/8/2005 9:39:00 PM
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 05:04:13AM +0900, Tobias Luetke wrote:
> There is no gem for the new fcgi release. Can anyone help out? Tom?
> This is very very important because of the recent popularity of rails.
> Memory leaks in the suggested production setup are not cool.
>
> Also I think fcgi should get a version bump to 1.0 . Version numbers
> like 0.8.6 are just confusingly smelling like beta software. There are
> several companies (37signals, snowdevil...) futures being trusted to
> this code so I really think it deserves the production ready tag :)
Let me suggest something. The best mark of "production ready" is to look
at the source and judge for yourself, or test and get usage data. One's
beta is another's release quality. And more eyes on the code and actual
-reports- from operational experience help a lot.
Kirk is using FastCGI with Enigo, and I know that 37 signals is using it
too -- that's where two of the last bug-fixes started life. More
reports are a good thing -- even if it's just "I'm using it with ____
kinds of loads for ___" are the real mark of confidence.
While 1.0 might be nice, It would be even better to have publically
visible input on its stability. That goes for all software, in my
opinion. Actual usage is the best claim to stability, not a claimed
version number. There's no race to 1.0, since the next thing after that
is 1.1 to fix its bugs, of course. It's an ongoing process. The real
trick is to know it works for others in your situation, and when.
Since I'm using FastCGI in a production environment, and will admit to
starting the "use lighttpd!" trend, I've a vested interest in making it
work right. Let's get some declarations of problems and declarations of
success out in public and make ruby-fcgi some trusted software that way,
and let's uncover any remaining bug there might be.
Ari