A standard like WSGI for Ruby?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Phil Tomson, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. Phil Tomson

    Phil Tomson Guest

    There's a perennial discussion on Reddit about the strengths of Python vs Ruby.

    there was mention of WSGI as a web-app standard on Python. here's the quote:

    "That's the point, it is a language-wide standard that has been
    adopted by the community officialy. It makes it trivial to make a web
    application that supports WSGI to run on any server that runs on WSGI.
    In Ruby, you look at something like Mongrel and it has to explicitly
    add Rails, Camping, Nitro support. In Python, if a server is WSGI,
    anything that supports WSGI will run on it. Some frameworks, like
    Pylons, have incorporated it throughout the stack to make it trivial
    to swap put template systems, ORMs, you name it. Rubyists would do
    best to check it out; while it is a very simple standard, it is very
    empowering to the web development community. That's why you see so
    many frameworks in Python, because frankly they are rather easy to put
    together."

    Could Ruby benefit from an internal standard like this?
     
    Phil Tomson, Sep 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Phil Tomson wrote:
    > In Ruby, you look at something like Mongrel and it has to explicitly
    > add Rails, Camping, Nitro support. In Python, if a server is WSGI,
    > anything that supports WSGI will run on it.

    Well, part of that is mindshare. Consider that the Nitro, IOWA authors
    wrote the Mongrel adapters themselves (for the most part). In this case
    you could call the Mongrel API the Ruby version of WSGI.

    > Some frameworks, like
    > Pylons, have incorporated it throughout the stack to make it trivial
    > to swap put template systems, ORMs, you name it.

    Yeah, that's my (limited) understanding of where WSGI shines. In Ruby,
    OTOH, there need to exist m*n adapters between m view libraries and n
    controller libraries. I dunno... big whoop. The adapters are, like, 3
    lines of code, and there isn't a heck of a lot of demand for Amrita (as
    in, not erb) as *is*.

    > That's why you see so
    > many frameworks in Python, because frankly they are rather easy to put
    > together.

    Not true. WSGI arose *because* of the so many frameworks, and the
    pro-Rails argument that "we don't have to waste time choosing a stack."

    > Could Ruby benefit from an internal standard like this?

    Muh... I dunno. No?

    Devin
     
    Devin Mullins, Sep 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Phil Tomson

    Guest

    On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Devin Mullins wrote:

    > Well, part of that is mindshare. Consider that the Nitro, IOWA authors wrote
    > the Mongrel adapters themselves (for the most part). In this case you could
    > call the Mongrel API the Ruby version of WSGI.


    At the end of the day, the IOWA/Mongrel integration is a trivial thing,
    and something like WSGI could hardly make it easier than it already is
    without imposing design decisions on me.

    Here it is:

    def process(req, res)
    Thread.current[:worker] = true
    unless handle_file(req, res)
    request = Iowa::Request::Mongrel.new(req)
    response = Iowa.handleConnection request
    ::Iowa::InlineClient.new(request,response).print(res)
    end
    end

    That's the core of it. Not hard. IOWA already has an established
    precedent regarding what a request object looks like, so with something
    like WSGI, I'd either have to realign the request object expectation to
    whatever it provided, or I'd have to write a simple Iowa::Request::WSGI
    just like the Iowa::Request::Mongrel to take the request and apply it to
    the shape the application expects. And it's really no big deal.

    Maybe I'm failing to understand what WSGI really is because right now I
    don't see how it would help me.


    Kirk Haines
     
    , Sep 22, 2006
    #3
  4. On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:44:32PM +0900, wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Devin Mullins wrote:
    >
    > >Well, part of that is mindshare. Consider that the Nitro, IOWA authors
    > >wrote the Mongrel adapters themselves (for the most part). In this case
    > >you could call the Mongrel API the Ruby version of WSGI.

    >
    > At the end of the day, the IOWA/Mongrel integration is a trivial thing,
    > and something like WSGI could hardly make it easier than it already is
    > without imposing design decisions on me.
    >

    I think that was exactly Devin's point. (Is that it's so trivial, Ruby
    doesn't need such a standard.)
     
    Logan Capaldo, Sep 22, 2006
    #4
  5. Phil Tomson

    Guest

    On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:

    >> At the end of the day, the IOWA/Mongrel integration is a trivial thing,
    >> and something like WSGI could hardly make it easier than it already is
    >> without imposing design decisions on me.
    >>

    > I think that was exactly Devin's point. (Is that it's so trivial, Ruby
    > doesn't need such a standard.)


    Yeah. I was trying to support his point with my example. :)


    Kirk Haines
     
    , Sep 22, 2006
    #5
  6. On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:46:32PM +0900, wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:
    >
    > >>At the end of the day, the IOWA/Mongrel integration is a trivial thing,
    > >>and something like WSGI could hardly make it easier than it already is
    > >>without imposing design decisions on me.
    > >>

    > >I think that was exactly Devin's point. (Is that it's so trivial, Ruby
    > >doesn't need such a standard.)

    >
    > Yeah. I was trying to support his point with my example. :)
    >

    I'm glad this whole thread is people agreeing!
    >
    > Kirk Haines
     
    Logan Capaldo, Sep 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Logan Capaldo wrote:
    > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 10:46:32PM +0900, wrote:
    >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:
    >>
    >>>> At the end of the day, the IOWA/Mongrel integration is a trivial thing,
    >>>> and something like WSGI could hardly make it easier than it already is
    >>>> without imposing design decisions on me.
    >>>>
    >>> I think that was exactly Devin's point. (Is that it's so trivial, Ruby
    >>> doesn't need such a standard.)

    >> Yeah. I was trying to support his point with my example. :)
    >>

    > I'm glad this whole thread is people agreeing!
    >> Kirk Haines

    >
    >

    Yes ... I agree

    Hey -- a new Rejected Ruby Book Title!!

    Ruby Don't Need No Stinkin' WSGI
     
    M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Sep 22, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Brewer

    Re: Snakelets and WSGI

    Robert Brewer, Oct 12, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    367
    Paul Boddie
    Oct 13, 2004
  2. Thomas W

    WSGI-server in the standard distro?

    Thomas W, Aug 7, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
    Thomas W
    Aug 7, 2005
  3. Ben Finney
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    345
    Damjan
    May 22, 2006
  4. Patrick Kowalzick
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    511
    Patrick Kowalzick
    Mar 14, 2006
  5. Sriram Srinivasan
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    597
    Benjamin Kaplan
    Nov 12, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page