sawyer x wrote, On 11/07/11 14:33:
Is there any way I can convince you to help us improve the deployment docs to include your case? It's important for us to be able to cater to the common deployment procedures and if you weren't able to get all the information from the deployment docs, it definitely means they need revamping.
Actually, I find the "deployment" page very confusing, and ironically almost every option I tried (with Apache) didn't work "out of the box" for me. I'm can to try to organize it differently, and rewrite most of the apache section (and just copy-paste the others because I have no experience with them). The question is: are you guys willing to incorporate such changes, or just want some minor touch-ups on the apache+starman section? The content order that makes sense to me: 1. short section on "Direct(CGI/FastCGI,PSGI) vs Stand-Alone (Proxy)" 2. Direct (CGI/fastCGI/PSGI) per server - nginx - lighttpd - apache 3. StandAlone / Proxy - Intro: front-end (e.g. apache) vs. back-end (e.g. plackup+startman+dancer) - Back-ends: - ./bin/app.pl (for development) - Plackup (Starman, Twiggy, etc.) - Front-ends: - Apache + mod_proxy - Apache + mod_rewrite - nginx - lighttpd 4. Advanced options: - Create Service: Ubic, Daemon-tools - Multiple applications on same server - Plack::Builder - CGI/FastCGI - Apache + mod_rewrite - nginx / lighttpd ? - Non-root deployment - Serving static content directly - Apache + mod_rewrite - nginx / lighttpd ? - Performance - CGI vs. Starman ? Alternatively, mix 2+3 and organize by server type instead of by CGI/StandAlone. Let me know what you think, comments are welcomed from everyone, -gordon