Talk:Ruby on Rails
propose a change: Puma is actually production-ready
Ruby on Rails#Application servers mentioned that
The built-in Ruby On Rails HTTP server (called Puma) is convenient for basic development, but it is not recommended for production use. Instead, you should use an application server such as…
This is wrong. This judgement was probably there for WEBrick, back when WEBrick was the default server for Rails (because WEBrick comes with Ruby). I’d like to change this into something like “Puma is the default; if you like, you can use an alternative application servers such as…”. Franklin Yu (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Closing because it has been updated already. Franklin Yu (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
proposing a change: remove all Nginx and systemd configuration
Right now there are Nginx and systemd configuration in the Unicorn and Puma section. However, I see two issues:
- They are actually independent of the specific choice of servers: regardless of the choice among Thin, Unicorn, Phusion Passenger, and Puma, one can always manage the instance(s) with systemd, and one can always put another reverse proxy (doesn’t have to be Nginx!) in front of it. The current description seems to incorrectly imply that only Unicorn and Puma is suitable for Nginx and systemd.
- The configuration examples are redundant because they are already explained (better) in Nginx and systemd#Writing unit files.
If no objection in a week, I’d start cleaning them up. Franklin Yu (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Changed my mind; I decided that “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission” since reverting in MediaWiki is easy. Franklin Yu (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)