Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote in post #976429:
I use passenger standalone for the following reasons:
- It’s not WebBrick.
Why is that an advantage?
If you don’t see any advantage, then why did you choose Mongrel?
- It’s not Mongrel (i.e. it wasn’t created by Zed S.).
Why is that an advantage? (Yeah, Zed pisses me off, but I’m not
abandoning Mongrel only for that reason.)
As you said, “Zed pisses me off,” and it’s my opinion that the Phusion
guys are awesome. It’s my choice to support them by using their code.
That choice had little to do with advantage. It had a lot more to do
with there not being a significant inconvenience to using passenger.
I also don’t care about the future roadmap of Mongrel 2:
http://mongrel2.org/home. So it’s “language agnostic.” I don’t care
about that, since I would only ever use it for Ruby.
- I’ve never tried Thin.
I think it’s becoming the new Mongrel.
If that happens, and there is some advantage over passenger, then I
might consider Thin.
- It’s dead simple to install.
Not as simple as Mongrel being installed with Rails automatically…
Mongrel is not installed with Rails automatically. When I installed
Rails 3 under RVM it launched with WebBrick, since there was no mongrel
gem. This is why for my case it was just as easy to run gem install
passenger as was to run gem install mongrel.
Yes, it’s true that “rails server” will look for mongrel, but you have
to type either “rails s(erver)”, “thin start” or “passenger start”. So
yes passenger takes a few more keystrokes, but that can easily be
aliased.
- It’s just as easy to launch as anything else.
- For at least some of the reasons listed here:
Phusion Passenger Standalone users guide
Those are wonderful reasons for using Passenger in production (which I
do). None of them brings the slightest advantage to development.
True, but they don’t harm your development environment either, so I
don’t see your point.