I agree with Jamis. i am one of those developers. Just started using capistrano and it's taken me 1.5 days to get it to parcially work. I figure there is a lot of people out there that just want the simplest out of the box config to just work. More options good....for some....not all.
On May 15, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Jamis Buck wrote: > I think it boils down to the fact that there are basically two types > of developers who are deploying rails apps: those who have dedicated > sysadmins, and those who don't. I think the latter are more common, > and those are the ones I want capistrano to target out of the box. > Naturally, capistrano can be adapted to many other uses, and that's > fine--I just want people with little deployment experience and no > experts on retainer to be able to use capistrano with a minimum of > pain. > > - Jamis > > On May 15, 2008, at 11:20 AM, David Masover wrote: > >> I think it's a difference in philosophy. >> >> As a Unix admin, I see the value in setting a system-wide script on >> the server. After all, I might have mongrel_cluster and nginx >> installed, or I might have Apache and mod_rails -- as the admin, >> that's my choice, and the app developer not only doesn't have any >> say in it, they shouldn't have to think about it. >> >> However, it's pretty clear that the Rails philosohpy is pretty much >> exactly the opposite -- the plugin system seems designed to ensure >> that absolutely everything to do with running the app is bundled up >> in the app itself. It's the moral equivalent of static linking -- >> the assumption is that you can't trust the remote host to have >> things setup properly, but with plugits, you don't have to. >> >> Capistrano seems to be driven by the same philosophy -- the entire >> app is distributed everywhere, and all the configuration is >> included with the app, in such a way that, in theory, you can >> deploy the same way to any remote host. >> >> I'm not going to actually state a preference, just pointing out >> where I think the disconnect is. >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Jamis Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> I disagree. You've certainly described *another* way to do it, but >> if it means people have to actually set up those scripts >> themselves, your way means additional (potentially confusing) setup >> is required for people who want to use Capistrano, and that's what >> I'd like to avoid. >> >> What I'd love (pie in the sky, here) is for someone to install >> Capistrano, and have everything they need right there. I think the >> deprec stuff is a good example of that--a bunch of capistrano tasks >> that help you go from zero to deploy using only Capistrano. I don't >> think Capistrano needs to ship with a complete solution like >> deprec, especially it would need to understand all the different >> server platforms, and that would get ridiculously complex (I >> believe). >> >> Now, maybe the "right" way would be for deploy:setup to push the >> desired web-start/web-stop/etc. script to each server, but from the >> user's perspective that's transparent. In their deploy.rb, they've >> added a variable or variables indicating which configuration they >> want, and they don't care how it's implemented under the covers. >> The deploy.rb (or Capfile) is their "recipe" for deployment, and >> should ideally be the centralized place where they describe how it >> is configured. >> >> - Jamis >> >> >> On May 15, 2008, at 3:39 AM, Neil Wilson wrote: >> >> >> That's not the way to do it. The way to approach it is to abstract >> the >> 'start', 'stop' process on the *server* not the client. >> >> That way you install a set of server scripts that conform to a >> standard interface and they depend upon the application/web/database >> layer you have installed on the server. >> >> Your client then simply calls 'web-start' and the right thing happens >> on each server depending upon which equipment you have installed. You >> can probably even have a mix of mongrels and passengers if you want. >> >> The client shouldn't care what is installed on the servers. It just >> needs a standard interface to work to. >> >> On 14 May, 22:34, Tom Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "set :application_container, :modrails" or something like that. >> That's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
