Passenger NginX module destiny about mva-overlay HOT 3 CLOSED

So, no one except me is using it? It will be very sad if another overlay will drop it's support

from mva-overlay.

@infoman strange. I'm (still) using it on production and it works for me. But, anyway, looking in their issue list, where bugs (with patches attached!) are opened for 8 years (!!!), and where they "moving" milestone on very popular (!!!) feature request about per-application logs... So... I think, it will be better to quote NginX developers, that passenger is a piece of... uhm... [strange thing].

// Although, not that uwsgi would be better. So, it'll be probably (g)unicorn/thin...

// Anyway, for now, I'll not remove it from the ebuild. Until they brake something else, that passenger will refuse to build again.

// and, talking on your issue — I'll try to investigate it a bit more and maybe ask some questions.

from mva-overlay.

Sorry, about that error in original comment — it was just my typo in directive name and I already fixed it.

About some other application server — the problem is that for multiple applications I must run and configur a server instance for each app, that could be boring sometimes, and Passenger has all configuration in one place, that is just simpler to maintain. Also there's no headache to start all these servers when the machine goes up, the Passenger daemon starts all applications automatically at first request and can even shut them down if no one used them for an amount of time.

Some of this functionality can possibly be achieved by writing some [email protected] systemd units and using socket activation, but this will be even more configuration headache, that can be just avoided with Passenger.

The build system is not that good as the other parts unfortunately :(

from mva-overlay.