1

I develop on a Mac, and I'm pretty comfortable setting up an Ubuntu VM with Apache installed, so "you don't need to install Apache" is not really a reason. I run Ruby from the VM anyway, so there doesn't seem to be much difference in system resources needed.

In my head, the advantage of using Apache is that it's going to perform more consistently with my production server.

So what reasons are there to use WEBrick? Does it make development easier somehow?

Dan Blows
  • 20,846
  • 10
  • 65
  • 96

3 Answers3

3

No there are no advantages. The only "advantage" is that it is the pre-bundled webserver so you at least "have something"

I'm sure most experienced Ruby devs use something else like thin, mongrel, unicorn, pow, passenger, etc...

cpjolicoeur
  • 12,766
  • 7
  • 48
  • 59
  • So it would be fair to say that it allows people who can't set up Apache to still use Rails? – Dan Blows May 08 '11 at 23:12
  • i guess, if you want to look at it that way. Really, its there so you dont need to configure an apache vhost entry just to run your code in development mode. Its really more an ease of use thing than anything. – cpjolicoeur May 08 '11 at 23:14
1

I'd go for phusion passenger + passsenger pref pane: http://www.fngtps.com/2008/06/putting-the-pane-back-into-deployment

Awesomeness. This way I can act more like the production server and take it easy when adding new projects etc.

yoka
  • 106
  • 2
0

I've been using Rails for a school project, and I find the colorized logs helpful when I'm trying to figure out what the server is doing. Sure you could tail -f the apache logs, but color is nice IMO.

Eric Seidel
  • 2,781
  • 2
  • 17
  • 18
  • Colorized logs are nice, but also possible with Apache. I guess that's the point about WEBrick - it's making design choices for the user, which follows the whole Ruby and Rails philosophy. – Dan Blows May 09 '11 at 22:58
  • Oh nice, I didn't realize that. – Eric Seidel May 09 '11 at 23:27