Unicorn/Rainbows!/Zbatery "support" in rack.git...

Unicorn/Rainbows!/Zbatery "support" in rack.git...

[Eric Wong]

Hello, I'm the main support/helpdesk guy and project leader for
Unicorn/Rainbows!/Zbatery servers.   I believe
dff8e34f43c2897062d5b252406398ced2d360a8 to add handlers for these
servers is a bad change for everyone.

All three servers support Rack natively and were designed around the
Rack spec.  However the (sometimes minor) differences in using "rackup"
vs the shipped commands will cause confusion among both users and
developers trying to support them.

All three servers also rely on Unix signals for management, so their
names in the process table is also an important part of the user
experience.

Unlike typical web servers, Unicorn should never be directly exposed to
slow clients, but a user just trying it with "rackup" would never be
informed of that (especially since other servers like
Mongrel/Thin/WEBrick don't have this limitation).

Rainbows! and Zbatery are also completely worthless without a
configuration file, but "rackup" has no way of conveying that to the
user.  The user would just be left with an even worse version
of Unicorn.


I'm also under the impression that nobody uses Rainbows! or Zbatery,
yet, so I'd rather users' first impressions of those projects be
through the officially-supported and documented commands.

Thanks for reading, I hope you agree and revert the change.

-- 
Eric Wong

Re: Unicorn/Rainbows!/Zbatery "support" in rack.git...

[Aaron Patterson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1587 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:36:02AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Hello, I'm the main support/helpdesk guy and project leader for
> Unicorn/Rainbows!/Zbatery servers.   I believe
> dff8e34f43c2897062d5b252406398ced2d360a8 to add handlers for these
> servers is a bad change for everyone.
> 
> All three servers support Rack natively and were designed around the
> Rack spec.  However the (sometimes minor) differences in using "rackup"
> vs the shipped commands will cause confusion among both users and
> developers trying to support them.
> 
> All three servers also rely on Unix signals for management, so their
> names in the process table is also an important part of the user
> experience.
> 
> Unlike typical web servers, Unicorn should never be directly exposed to
> slow clients, but a user just trying it with "rackup" would never be
> informed of that (especially since other servers like
> Mongrel/Thin/WEBrick don't have this limitation).
> 
> Rainbows! and Zbatery are also completely worthless without a
> configuration file, but "rackup" has no way of conveying that to the
> user.  The user would just be left with an even worse version
> of Unicorn.
> 
> 
> I'm also under the impression that nobody uses Rainbows! or Zbatery,
> yet, so I'd rather users' first impressions of those projects be
> through the officially-supported and documented commands.
> 
> Thanks for reading, I hope you agree and revert the change.

Hi Eric,

I've reverted the commit.  Thanks for letting us know.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Unicorn/Rainbows!/Zbatery "support" in rack.git...

[Eric Wong]

Aaron Patterson <aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> I've reverted the commit.  Thanks for letting us know.

Thanks Aaron!