I was trying to create my website using CGI and ERB, but when I search on the web, I see people saying I should always avoid using CGI, and always use Rack.
I understand CGI will fork a lot of Ruby processes, but if I use FastCGI, only one persistent process will be created, and it is adopted by PHP websites too. Plus FastCGI interface only create one object for one request and has very good performance, as opposed to Rack which creates 7 objects at once.
Is there any specific reason I should not use CGI? Or it is just false assumption and it is entirely ok to use CGI/FastCGI?
CGI, by which I mean both the interface and the common programming libraries and practices around it, was written in a different time. It has a view of request handlers as distinct processes connected to the webserver via environment variables and standard I/O streams.
This was state-of-the-art in its day, when there were not really "web frameworks" and "embedded server modules" as we think of them today. Thus...
CGI tends to be slow
Again, the CGI model spawns one new process per connection. While spawning processes per se is cheap these days, heavy web app initialization — reading and parsing scores of modules, making database connections, etc. — makes this quite expensive.
CGI tends toward too-low-level (IMHO) design
Again, the CGI model explicitly mentions environment variables and standard input as the interface between request and handler. But ... who cares? That's much lower level than the app designer should generally be thinking about. If you look at libraries and code based on CGI, you'll see that the bulk of it encourages "business logic" right alongside form parsing and HTML generation, which is now widely seen as a dangerous mixing of concerns.
Contrast with something like Rack::Builder, where right away the coder is thinking of mapping a namespace to an action, and what that means for the broader web application. (Suddenly we are free to argue about the semantic web and the virtues of REST and this and that, because we're not thinking about generating radio buttons based off user-supplied input.)
Yes, something like Rack::Builder could be implemented on top of CGI, but, that's the point. It'd have to be a layer of abstraction built on top of CGI.
CGI tends to be sneeringly dismissed
Despite CGI working perfectly well within its limitations, despite it being simple and widely understood, CGI is often dismissed out of hand. You, too, might be dismissed out of hand if CGI is all you know.
Don't use CGI. Please. It's not worth it. Back in the 1990s when nobody knew better it seemed like a good idea, but that was when scripts were infrequent, used for special cases like handling form submissions, not driving entire sites.
FastCGI is an attempt at a "better CGI" but it's still deficient in a large number of ways, especially because you have to manage your FastCGI worker processes.
Rack is a much better system, and it works very well. If you use Rack, you have a wide variety of hosting systems to choose from, even Passenger which is really simple and reliable.
I don't know what mean when you say Rack creates "7 objects at once" unless you mean there are 7 different Rack processes running somehow or you've made a mistake in your implementation.
I can't think of a single instance where CGI would be better than a Rack equivalent.
There exists a lot of confusion about what CGI, Rack etc. really are. As I describe here, Rack is an API, and FastCGI is a protocol. CGI is also a protocol, but in its narrow sense also an implementation, and for what you're speaking of is not at all the same thing as FastCGI. So let's start with the background.
Back in the early 90s, web servers simply read files (HTML, images, whatever) off the disk and sent them to the client. People started to want to do some processing at the time of the request, and the early solution that came out was to run a program that would produce the result sent back to the client, rather than just reading the file. The "protocol" for this was for the web server to be given a URL that it was configured to execute as a program (e.g., /cgi-bin/my-script), where the web server would then set up a set of environment variables with various information about the request and run the program with the body of the request on the standard input. This was referred to as the "Common Gateway Interface."
Given that this forks off a new process for every request, it's clearly inefficient, and you almost certainly don't want to use this style of dynamic request handling on high-volume web sites. (Starting a whole new process is relatively expensive in computational resources.)
One solution to making this more efficient is to, rather than starting a new process, send the request information to an existing process that's already running. This is what FastCGI is all about; it maintains a very similar interface to CGI (you have a set of variables with most of the request information, and a stream of data for the body of the request). But instead of setting actual Unix environment variables and starting a new process with the body on stdin, it sends a request similar to an HTTP request to an FCGI server already running on the machine where it specifies the values of these variables and the request body contents.
If the web server can have the program code embedded in it somehow, this becomes even more efficient because it just runs the code itself. Two classic examples of how you might do this would be:
Have PHP embedded in Apache, so that the "Apache server code" just calls the "PHP server code" that's part of the same process; and
Not run Apache at all, but have the web server be written in Ruby (or Python, or whatever) and load and run more Ruby code that's been custom-written to handle the request.
So where does Rack come in to this? Rack is an API that lets code that handles web requests receive it in a common way, regardless of the web server. So given some Ruby code to process a request that uses the Rack API, the web server might:
Be a Ruby web server that simply makes function calls in its own process to the Rack-compliant code that it loaded;
Be a web server (written in any language) that uses the FastCGI protocol to talk to another process with FastCGI server code that, again, makes function calls to the Rack-compliant code that handles the request; or
Be a server that starts a brand new process that interprets the CGI environment variables and standard input passed to it and then calls the Rack-compliant code.
So whether you're using CGI, FastCGI, another inter-process protocol, or an intra-process protocol, makes no difference; you can do any of those using Rack so long as the server knows about it or is talking to a process that can understand CGI, FastCGI or whatever and call Rack-compliant code based on that request.
So:
For performance scaling, you definitely don't want to be using CGI; you want to be using FastCGI, a similar protocol (such as the Tomcat one), or direct in-process calling of the code.
If you use the Rack API, you don't need to worry at the early stages which protocol you're using between your web server and your program because the whole point of APIs like Rack is that you can change it later.
I am trying to see if I can create a simple website, like a blog, using only Ruby. No Rails or a database or outside web servers. I plan to store the data in a file for persistence.
I wanted to use TCPServer, CGI, and Net::HTTP.
Is there an easier way I can use?
There are a lot of moving parts when designing a website.
Depending on the purpose of the exercise, you might want to consider using a very simple web framework like Camping, Sinatra, or Ramaze. This is probably the best solution if you're trying to get a top level understanding of web programming because it only has exactly what you need (Camping is less than 4k!) and handles stuff like routing.
Building a web server is more an exercise in HTTP parsing. You might want to omit the framework and try to build something on top of Rake (an API for lots of popular web servers) and a simple web server like Webrick or Thin.
You could also try Espresso
It is easy to learn and fast to run.
And offers all the liberty you need for creation process.
Also it has no hidden "fees", everything is transparent.
I have a Ruby CGI script that I use in my web application. The trouble is, the script is used very often and it is quite big - I load quite a few gems. This results in a long startup time. I know that Ruby 1.9.3 improved startup time, but this is not enough.
What are some of the ways to improve startup time?
Modify your script/application to be a Rack application. Once you have done that, you will be able to use Rack's handlers for the faster FCGI or SCGI or other fast CGI handlers.
If you want good performance, use a persistent server technology, not CGI. CGI is notoriously slow in any language. You need to persist your code on a server to completely eliminate startup time.
I'd check out Sinatra, which is every bit as easy to develop for as CGI. Setup can be easy too. There are many server solutions you can use, such as passenger (which is loaded into apache, for example, as mod_passenger, much like mod_cgi). There's even a standalone server built into the Sinatra framework -- super easy.
I'm looking to make some relatively simple pages with some relatively small pieces of dynamic content inside.
I have looked into embedded Ruby as a potential alternative to php in this situation, and it looks rather interesting. Which implementation should I use, and how should I integrate this with a web server such as Apache? In other words, what is analogous to something like mod_php or php through CGI?
My primary goal here is convenience. I would like this to require less effort to implement and maintain. Also, I am looking to have access to things like HTTP request parameters and other such goodies in a convenient format (i.e. if I use CGI, I don't want to be parsing argv manually).
Thanks.
Probably the easiest solution would be to run an application server via Thin and have Apache proxy to it. Your application can use whatever HTTP and templating libraries you like. Take a look at Sinatra if you're not familiar. It's very lightweight and flexible.
Is there a framework for Ruby for CGI that provides similar functionality as Ruby on Rails (mvc)?
Also, The server where the app shall be used on does not support FCGI, only plain old CGI.
Ruby comes with a CGI module, but it isn't a MVC at all. It makes it easy to extract parameters from a HTTP request passed to the app, encode and decode the query params, etc. It relies on a web server to handle routing the request to the right page, so there's quite a gap between a MVC and a CGI.
There are alternate MVCs for Ruby. Sinatra is very easy to use, and Padrino is built on Sinatra, putting it between Sinatra and Rails. I like using Sinatra at work because it's good for fast prototyping and in-house loads are nowhere close to what we'd get on an internet facing app.
As far as the server not supporting FCGI, a MVC doesn't really care. Put its server on a different port, then reference that port when you want something to talk to Sinatra. For instance, if you tell Sinatra to use 8088, your URLs for Sinatra served pages would be something like: http://host.com:8808/url/path/to/object. Load your Sinatra based app on the web server and start it up. It'll run concurrently with the normal web server.