How to put a Ruby website online without rails

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Softmind Technology, Jan 4, 2008.

  1. Hi,

    I would like to develop a website totally in Ruby.

    But i do not want to go the MVC way. Neither i want to go Ruby on Rails
    way.

    I have heard many stories about rails deployment. Its no as easy as PHP
    deployment, neither are good host available for Ruby on rails.

    what is the next option.....? I think Rails can't be the only solution.

    I would like to place my website online just like PHP, but using Ruby
    instead of PHP.

    The platform would be Apache and MySql.

    I think Ruby and Dreamweaver can make a nice combination. I also have
    Netbeans and Scite installed and both works great.

    I think preparing the design in Dreamweaver and checking the codes in
    Netbeans, would be a nice idea.... But how to implement this ...?

    Thanks

    SoftMind
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Softmind Technology, Jan 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. there is mod_ruby just like mod_php.

    there was lots of ruby applications before rails - but MVC was found to
    be best way to handle web development :)

    anyway if you want just use mod_ruby - or cgi or fast-cgi.

    choice is yours.

    greets
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Jan 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. You may want to try FastCGI, specifically, fcgi library for Ruby (gem
    install fcgi)
    and mod_fcgid for Apache.

    You don't want to touch mod_ruby if you want to save your sleep.
     
    Vasyl Smirnov, Jan 4, 2008
    #3
  4. Softmind Technology

    Matt Todd Guest

    If what you want is PHP-like, why don't you use PHP? You certainly
    sound more attuned to the PHP style of web development as it is.

    Why do something half-assed with one language what you can do probably
    better in another language that has much more support for that style
    of development, etc. You won't find as much documentation for Ruby web
    development not employing MVC paradigms... it's almost a de-facto
    standard of Ruby web development (not to say that it is the ultimate
    (tm) way to developm, but that it is the preferred way).

    Don't try to struggle and do something awkward, just go with the
    natural choice for the job.

    If you do want to learn Ruby, consider that the reason why Ruby is
    preferable to the likes of PHP is because of good style, flexibility,
    and good libraries and tools doing the heavy lifting for us with some
    standards.

    Deploying on servers isn't impossible, it's just not the same as
    Apache. There's plenty of documentation and suggestions where to get
    it done and how, so it's not going to be difficult to do.

    Rails is a lot to learn and it's certainly not small, but there are
    other options. Merb is in the same area with Rails with regards to
    being bigger than smaller, but it's very clean, light weight, and
    shouldn't be too different from Rails. There are other frameworks like
    Ramaze, Sinatra, IOWA, etc.

    I would highly recommend you reconsider your decision to not go with
    an MVC approach and also reconsider the facts.

    Matt
     
    Matt Todd, Jan 4, 2008
    #4
  5. Softmind Technology

    hux0r Guest

    On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:45:48 -0500, Softmind Technology wrote:

    > I would like to place my website online just like PHP, but using Ruby
    > instead of PHP.
    >
    > The platform would be Apache and MySql.


    I had a very nice experience with ERUBY. Eruby was easy to install on a
    shared host and easy to configure since they had CPanel.

    It should take your average admin 2.7 secs to install in case your server
    host will do that for you.

    Mod_ruby, erb and fastcgi are all valid alternatives, too.

    Casimir
     
    hux0r, Jan 4, 2008
    #5
  6. > Rails is a lot to learn and it's certainly not small, but there are
    > other options. Merb is in the same area with Rails with regards to
    > being bigger than smaller, but it's very clean, light weight, and
    > shouldn't be too different from Rails. There are other frameworks like
    > Ramaze, Sinatra, IOWA, etc.


    Just wanted to highlight this bit. Also Camping, Nitro, and probably
    others I've forgotten.

    --
    Giles Bowkett

    Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
    Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
    Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
    Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com
     
    Giles Bowkett, Jan 4, 2008
    #6
  7. Softmind Technology

    John Joyce Guest

    as far as the language you choose, it all depends on what you want to
    do and how much you want to do.
    If you just need some simple, quick things, PHP might be a better
    choice to get started and make things work.
    If you are interested in more complex things, you will want to use
    some existing framework in any language to help things be structured
    and easier to maintain and add to.
    The problem is, without experiencing several frameworks in several
    languages, it is difficult to compare them or even choose the right
    one for a particular project.
    The web hosting provider you use, and features you get for the paid
    service level will determine some things for you.
    All frameworks and languages will have a learning curve.

    But again, if you just need some little things here and there, PHP
    might be the best approach in the beginning, since many of it's
    functions are quick, one-trick-ponies, and PHP is widely supported
    and easy to get started with for web development.
    But if you need a lot of features, spend some time investigating a
    language/framework combination that will work for you.
    It all depends on the specifics.
    If you need to do a lot of sophisticated things, you might find PHP
    quickly becomes tedious to work with. Then look into Ruby or Python
    based frameworks that save you a lot of work in the long-run.

    Generally speaking, web sites are not set-it-and-forget-it, they
    often require regular updates and changes.
     
    John Joyce, Jan 4, 2008
    #7
  8. Softmind Technology

    James Dinkel Guest

    I have wondered this same thing. Sometimes a web framework isn't the
    best option, but I know Ruby very well and I don't know PHP at all.
    What would I have to do that I can just create a file called somepage.rb
    with this in it:

    <html>
    <body>
    <p>This is counting to 10: <%= 10.times { |n| print n+1, " " } %></p>
    </body>
    </html>

    And just have to dump it into any old folder that Apache servers pages
    in and have it served properly? Can I just do "sudo aptitude -y install
    mod_ruby" and will it Just Work(tm)?
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    James Dinkel, Jan 5, 2008
    #8
  9. > I have wondered this same thing. Sometimes a web framework isn't the
    > best option, but I know Ruby very well and I don't know PHP at all.
    > What would I have to do that I can just create a file called somepage.rb
    > with this in it:


    And the good news is ... FRAMEWORKS DON'T HAVE TO EAT YOUR SOUL! :)

    RoR is the *Most Popular* web framework for Ruby.
    It is *not* the only framework. Some others are:

    Nitro/Og http://www.nitroproject.org/

    Camping http://redhanded.hobix.com/bits/campingAMicroframework.html

    Ramaze http://ramaze.net/

    Sinatra http://sinatra.rubyforge.org/

    Merb http://merbivore.com/

    NARF http://www.narf-lib.org/

    Etc (I'm sure there are many more)

    I would recommend looking around and seeing if any one of the dozens
    of current frameworks would work for you. They aren't all huge. They
    aren't all slow. They don't all have the same (or any) notion of MVC.

    In the end I would avoid using PHP at all costs (unless dictated due
    to server resources or monetary pay) because I hate that wretched
    language. And, I would look at a framework which offers--it doesn't
    need to mandate--an MVC architecture or other method of separating
    HTML and code. Even if you don't [want to] use it now, having the
    option may allow for a cleaner transition....
     
    Paul Stickney, Jan 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Hello All,

    Let me come out clear. I do not know PHP, neither i am a Php guy.

    I am just like James Dinkel, who has explained his requirement above.

    I am totally into plain Ruby. Not even rails.

    I am looking for a solution where i can place the codes inline the HTML
    file just like classic asp and Php.

    Currently Rails is placing the codes inside HTML with ERB. I want to
    place the codes same way either with include file or some other way...
    But... Without Ruby on rails.

    It would be better, if some one can point me out a working tutorial or
    blog based on my requirement. I do not want to get tied up initially
    with any of MVC.

    Hope i have cleared myself.

    Thanks

    SoftMind.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Softmind Technology, Jan 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Softmind Technology wrote:
    > Hello All,
    >
    > Let me come out clear. I do not know PHP, neither i am a Php guy.
    >
    > I am just like James Dinkel, who has explained his requirement above.
    >
    > I am totally into plain Ruby. Not even rails.
    >
    > I am looking for a solution where i can place the codes inline the HTML
    > file just like classic asp and Php.
    >
    > Currently Rails is placing the codes inside HTML with ERB. I want to
    > place the codes same way either with include file or some other way...
    > But... Without Ruby on rails.
    >
    > It would be better, if some one can point me out a working tutorial or
    > blog based on my requirement. I do not want to get tied up initially
    > with any of MVC.
    >
    > Hope i have cleared myself.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > SoftMind.


    You can just use Erubis + Ruby + Apache with mod_fcgi or Mongrel
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Jan 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Marcin Raczkowski wrote:
    > Softmind Technology wrote:
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> SoftMind.

    >
    > You can just use Erubis + Ruby + Apache with mod_fcgi or Mongrel

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    @Marcin,

    Can you point me a blog/tutorial etc for a start.

    I do not know how to implement such things. I do not know what is
    Erubis.

    Your help would be appreciated.

    P.S.:- if any one has implemented such things... Pl. come out and help
    us too.

    Thanks

    SoftMind
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Softmind Technology, Jan 5, 2008
    #12
  13. You have technology in name, you should be able to read technical
    documentation right?

    erubis is rhtml template technology -
    http://www.kuwata-lab.com/erubis/users-guide.html

    fast cgi -
    https://rubyforge.org/projects/fcgi/

    took me 2 google queries and 5-6 clicks, what so hard about it?
    if you are not profficient with ruby - go use rails - mvc is not really
    stupid idea.

    if you are not you can hire me as consutant and I'll write you php style
    framework in 2hours and charge you 400$

    go figure
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Jan 5, 2008
    #13
  14. Softmind Technology

    thefed Guest

    On Jan 5, 2008, at 2:03 AM, Softmind Technology wrote:

    > Hello All,
    >
    > Let me come out clear. I do not know PHP, neither i am a Php guy.
    >
    > I am just like James Dinkel, who has explained his requirement above.
    >
    > I am totally into plain Ruby. Not even rails.
    >
    > I am looking for a solution where i can place the codes inline the
    > HTML
    > file just like classic asp and Php.
    >
    > Currently Rails is placing the codes inside HTML with ERB. I want to
    > place the codes same way either with include file or some other way...
    > But... Without Ruby on rails.
    >
    > It would be better, if some one can point me out a working tutorial or
    > blog based on my requirement. I do not want to get tied up initially
    > with any of MVC.


    I know EXACTLY what you're looking for :)

    These are all engines to create STATIC sites - no knowledge of
    anything required

    * nanoc - http://nanoc.stoneship.org/
    Awesome tool for creating static websites - just the pages and ruby,
    nothing else :)
    * staticmatic - http://staticmatic.rubyforge.org/
    Ruby + Haml + Sass
    * hobix - http://hobix.com/
    suitable replacement for hallucinogens
    * webby - http://webby.rubyforge.org/
    redcloth as markup

    Personally, I enjoy nanoc and staticmatic. There are still more
    listed in the nanoc manual http://nanoc.stoneship.org/help/manual/
    chapter-1/#similar-projects

    HTH,
    Ari Brown
     
    thefed, Jan 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Just FYI, I released a framework called Vintage last night that's
    based on the original idea of Merb: Erb templates with Mongrel (though
    I've expanded that concept to allow for more template renderers). No
    MVC, no big infrastructure: just clean, simple templating that can be
    used for simple or complex pages. I'm going to port it to Rack soon
    so you can use some deployment setups that are a little simpler than
    Mongrel, but if you're not scared of a little setup (proxying,
    Mongrel, pretty easy) then give it a spin.

    Source is here: http://vintage.devjavu.com/

    More documentation coming soon.

    --Jeremy

    On Jan 4, 2008 2:45 AM, Softmind Technology
    <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I would like to develop a website totally in Ruby.
    >
    > But i do not want to go the MVC way. Neither i want to go Ruby on Rails
    > way.
    >
    > I have heard many stories about rails deployment. Its no as easy as PHP
    > deployment, neither are good host available for Ruby on rails.
    >
    > what is the next option.....? I think Rails can't be the only solution.
    >
    > I would like to place my website online just like PHP, but using Ruby
    > instead of PHP.
    >
    > The platform would be Apache and MySql.
    >
    > I think Ruby and Dreamweaver can make a nice combination. I also have
    > Netbeans and Scite installed and both works great.
    >
    > I think preparing the design in Dreamweaver and checking the codes in
    > Netbeans, would be a nice idea.... But how to implement this ...?
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > SoftMind
    > --
    > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
    >
    >




    --
    http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

    My books:
    Ruby in Practice
    http://www.manning.com/mcanally/

    My free Ruby e-book
    http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/

    My blogs:
    http://www.mrneighborly.com/
    http://www.rubyinpractice.com/
     
    Jeremy McAnally, Jan 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Softmind Technology

    James Britt Guest

    Giles Bowkett wrote:
    >> Rails is a lot to learn and it's certainly not small, but there are
    >> other options. Merb is in the same area with Rails with regards to
    >> being bigger than smaller, but it's very clean, light weight, and
    >> shouldn't be too different from Rails. There are other frameworks like
    >> Ramaze, Sinatra, IOWA, etc.

    >
    > Just wanted to highlight this bit. Also Camping, Nitro, and probably
    > others I've forgotten.
    >



    http://ramaze.net/home#other-frameworks

    There are a good number of well-designed tools, each opinionated in
    their own way. Find one that best suits what you want to do.


    Or roll your own. :)

    --
    James Britt

    www.risingtidesoftware.com - Wicked Cool Coding
    www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
     
    James Britt, Jan 5, 2008
    #16
  17. Softmind Technology

    yudi Guest

    [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    Ramaze looks good, gotta take a look. Thanks :)

    On Jan 5, 2008 11:28 AM, James Britt <> wrote:

    > Giles Bowkett wrote:
    > >> Rails is a lot to learn and it's certainly not small, but there are
    > >> other options. Merb is in the same area with Rails with regards to
    > >> being bigger than smaller, but it's very clean, light weight, and
    > >> shouldn't be too different from Rails. There are other frameworks like
    > >> Ramaze, Sinatra, IOWA, etc.

    > >
    > > Just wanted to highlight this bit. Also Camping, Nitro, and probably
    > > others I've forgotten.
    > >

    >
    >
    > http://ramaze.net/home#other-frameworks
    >
    > There are a good number of well-designed tools, each opinionated in
    > their own way. Find one that best suits what you want to do.
    >
    >
    > Or roll your own. :)
    >
    > --
    > James Britt
    >
    > www.risingtidesoftware.com - Wicked Cool Coding
    > www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
    >
    >



    --
    Do not be afraid of Change.
     
    yudi, Jan 5, 2008
    #17
  18. Softmind Technology

    James Dinkel Guest

    Here is a forum post that tells you how to embed ruby script into
    webpages just like php does. This uses mod_ruby and eruby. It's
    basically just apt install a couple packages and then add some Apache
    configuration.

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=356350

    Read all the way through it as I think the configuration in the last
    post is the best version. But I have not tried this myself yet, but it
    looks like it is all legit and nothing stupid or extraneous is being
    done.

    This is not much different than mod_php. Really, the only difference is
    that the mod_php install takes care of the apache configuration for you.
    I just wish that the mod_ruby installation did the same thing. Just
    install mod_ruby and the apache configuration would be taken care of.
    Really all it would need is one file added to the deb installation
    package. But for the time being, I guess at least it is possible to do.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    James Dinkel, Jan 7, 2008
    #18
  19. On 07/01/2008, James Dinkel <> wrote:
    > Here is a forum post that tells you how to embed ruby script into
    > webpages just like php does. This uses mod_ruby and eruby. It's
    > basically just apt install a couple packages and then add some Apache
    > configuration.
    >
    > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=356350
    >
    > Read all the way through it as I think the configuration in the last
    > post is the best version. But I have not tried this myself yet, but it
    > looks like it is all legit and nothing stupid or extraneous is being
    > done.
    >
    > This is not much different than mod_php. Really, the only difference is
    > that the mod_php install takes care of the apache configuration for you.
    > I just wish that the mod_ruby installation did the same thing. Just
    > install mod_ruby and the apache configuration would be taken care of.
    > Really all it would need is one file added to the deb installation
    > package. But for the time being, I guess at least it is possible to do.


    I suggest you stay away from mod_ruby because it is not as clean as it
    should. The 1.8 interpreter cannot be reset, and as Apache reuses
    processes some stuff may leak from one script into another. Using with
    the multithreaded Apache also won't be a big win as multiple Ruby
    threads cannot run concurrently. You probably can't even create
    multiple threads running ruby safely (as opposed to creating multiple
    ruby threads inside one native thread of execution as is done in the
    interpreter). You can use ruby as cgi scripts or with Mongrel or
    something but mod_ruby is not the right way.

    Thanks

    Michal
     
    Michal Suchanek, Jan 7, 2008
    #19
  20. On Jan 7, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:

    > I suggest you stay away from mod_ruby because it is not as clean as it
    > should. The 1.8 interpreter cannot be reset, and as Apache reuses
    > processes some stuff may leak from one script into another.


    This statement is completely fallacious. If you exercise just the
    minimum of programming discipline, you can easily write mod_ruby
    applications that run for months without any appreciable leakage. You
    certainly must take precautions against using global variables and
    poorly-namespaced classes, and mod_ruby is probably not suitable for
    running in an untrusted or shared environment without additional
    partitioning, but that doesn't describe the majority of situations.

    I've been running several mod_ruby applications for a year and a half
    where I work that require restarts only for new code or bugfixes.
    They've gotten over 3 million dynamic hits since they were first
    deployed, which isn't exactly as much of a stress-test as some other
    sites, but enough to demonstrate the error in your generalizations.

    > Using with
    > the multithreaded Apache also won't be a big win as multiple Ruby
    > threads cannot run concurrently.


    In addition to being specious, this means nothing in the context of
    your point.

    > You probably can't even create
    > multiple threads running ruby safely (as opposed to creating multiple
    > ruby threads inside one native thread of execution as is done in the
    > interpreter).



    Please, if you must post advice against using a particular piece of
    software, please provide concrete evidence of its unsuitability.
    Conjecture is mildly interesting in some situations, but when you
    impugn someone else's hard work you should at least have the courtesy
    to give examples, hard facts, or at the very least stick to points
    which you don't have to qualify with "probably".

    I'd be happy to provide further details if anyone's interested. I'm
    just getting tired of the FUD and hastily-posted conjecture about what
    constitutes appropriate technology for building web applications.

    --
    Michael Granger <>
    Rubymage, Architect, Believer
    The FaerieMUD Consortium <http://www.FaerieMUD.org/>
     
    Michael Granger, Feb 15, 2008
    #20
    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. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    195
    Michael Campbell
    Mar 17, 2005
  2. Michael Schuerig
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    237
    Carl Youngblood
    Jun 17, 2005
  3. Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    188
    Stephan Kämper
    Jan 24, 2006
  4. user-x
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    116
    user-x
    Oct 26, 2006
  5. Jason Wong
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    177
    Jason Wong
    Nov 20, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page