Zed Shaw? 还有那酸溜溜的mongrel2

叫什么是他人身自由了，各位看官的看法也不一样。我的看法是他当年一气之下说不玩了，现在又回来搞了个叫mongrel2的东西，还跑大胡子博客去说DHH的团队压根做不出线程安全的rails云云。当然，不可否认，此人实力很强，个性也很强。
passenger3的介绍还是很具诱惑性的，现在部署起来比较流行的不是passenger+apache/nginx?看来我火星了

没仔细了解zed为什么这么说，不过我知道ruby的线程本身就有问题。
zed这个人是很能乱喷，是个超级“有个性”的人，不能否认，
与谦恭礼让是压根不着边的。呵呵

Hey Zed,

I don’t disagree with your comment, except for one thing: Rails was threadsafe in 2.2, well after Merb was in full swing, but also well before the merge.

> Hey Yehuda,

> You kind of have a nasty habit of
> rewriting history and it sort of
> borders on slander. I’m really big on
> guys like you saying my code sucked
> when it didn’t, so let’s just address
> your assertions right here.

Mongrel is a great Ruby web server that we used to good effect in Merb and I don’t have any gripes with it. I don’t even disagree with your decision to wrap a lock around requests in mongrel_rails.

> I suggest you change your history of
> Mongrel and Rails history. The truth
> is that Rails wasn’t thread safe until
> much much later.

I’m sorry if I was unclear in my post. I specifically referenced Rails 2.2 and the attitude of the core team toward threadsafe Rails.

> In fact, DHH and all of rails core crew
> swore it could never be made thread
> safe. Yes, they actually said it could
> *never* be made thread safe.

I can totally believe this, as it was a source of much frustration in the Merb days. We had to put up with a lot of arguments that threads were basically useless, especially in 1.8. Parts of the argument in this post are arguments we made on behalf of Merb being threadsafe by default.

> The only recourse was to have
> Mongrel wrap all of rails in a mutex.

I completely agree that this was the correct course of action prior to Rails 2.2. The problem is that Mongrel 1.1.5 (the last stable release of mongrel, even until today) was released in May 2008, while Rails 2.2 was released in November 2008.

In other words, my comments were *not* a personal attack against you; you (and other mongrel maintainers) personally did the right thing at the time of the release of every version of mongrel that was ever publicly released.

> Notice how none of the other web
> frameworks had this mutex, you
> know like Merb? Merb had to come
> along and prove you could make a
> “thread safe rails” before they even
> thought about it being possible.

Yep. Again, this FUD was a source of frustration for us back in 2008.

> Mongrel was just trying to protect
> poor people who had to try to run
> Rails and keep it from crashing.

And you did the right thing.

> I guess that’s why 37Signals got
> with Engine Yard and forced the
> Rails and Merb projects to merge
> (unlike the claim that it was a whole
> meeting of the minds).

I can tell you with a clear conscience that the merge was not a plot between Engine Yard and 37 Signals. We spent significant amounts of time in technical discussions (with the core team, not 37S) before everyone got on board, and the core team was frankly skeptical at first.

> That way rails could finally be
> thread safe.

This is just not true. Rails became threadsafe in November 2008, after a Google Summer of Code project in Summer 2008.

> And BTW, Mongrel worked perfectly
> fine. Your whole (i.e. not mongrel) is a load of crap.

I apologize for the wording; I was (in context) specifically referencing the default behavior of mongrel_rails, which I had covered earlier in the post. As I said earlier, mongrel itself worked just fine, but the default Rails handler (in the latest release) hardcoded non-threaded behavior.

It was the right decision at the time, but it did have an impact on people’s perception of Rails’ threaded performance.

> Zed

– Yehuda