False. My webhost currently has us using FastCGI to run our Rails scripts. I may shoot them an email asking about mod_rails though.
On Nov 28, 3:43 pm, Frederick Cheung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't think anyone uses either of those these days. It's either > mod_rails or mongrel > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 28 Nov 2008, at 17:53, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > I'm a new Ruby on Rails developer who is working on applications for > > several different clients using the Ruby on Rails framework. The > > question that I've got to pose all of you concerns the differences > > between mod_ruby and FastCGI. I'm thinking about trying to get my > > webhost to install mod_ruby because it would run lightyears faster, > > but there's something I found about mod_ruby that they would probably > > take issue with. > > > On the Wikipedia article for mod_ruby, it reads: "Its drawback is that > > the characteristic sharing of classes among Apache processes is not > > safe for multiple applications." However, there is no citation. > > > So here's my question - is this a serious safety concern? If so, how > > did the developers of mod_php get around this problem? Is there > > another, more secure, solution to running ruby apps on a web server > > that is faster than mod_ruby? > > > Thanks in advance, > > Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
