Is Rails on IIS dead?

Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?

We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.

Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.
Is Rails on IIS dead?

Was it ever alive?! :-/

We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it
looks dire for Ruby on Rails... We could do with a straight answer.

hmmm... maybe the situation looks dire for IIS? Are you somehow
constrained to IIS for your web application?

What is IIS?

Do any of those references refer to Rack? I think that's the issue any more. I'm pretty sure that if you can host a Rack application on IIS, then you can host Rails.

I've never tried, because I've never needed to. I last used IIS in the late 90s, and I'm pretty sure it's changed a lot since then, but at the time, it was in principle trying very hard to ape the Apache conventions so as to ease uptake. Things like .htaccess and CGI and address rewriting were designed to be fairly transferable from one environment to the other.

What is your use-case that is binding you to IIS?

Walter

Internet references are years out of date and links to downloads broken.

Is Rails on IIS dead?

Was it ever alive?! :-/

We need to make a development decision and right now the situation it

looks dire for Ruby on Rails… We could do with a straight answer.

hmmm… maybe the situation looks dire for IIS? Are you somehow

constrained to IIS for your web application?

I tried on IIS about 1.5 years ago… hey, not sure but I hear the folks at Bloomberg.com develop rails on windows, not sure if they deploy to windows but maybe that is a lead. But really my experience was a nightmare trying to deploy on windows.

Kevin Bedell wrote in post #1036546:

What is IIS?

Your are kidding, right?

Why should he be?
This is a Rails list; if you asked on a .Net list whether C# apps could be deployed with Passenger, some people there might ask what ‘Passenger’ is :-/

/s/Passenger/Nginx

...would probably be a better equivalent :wink:

"Windows" is not necessarily "IIS" - it's perfectly possible to deploy
on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
the OP... that's likely to be much harder.

I appreciate the answers, but, why is everyone asking about my business
case for IIS?

Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
committed to Microsoft technology. I don't want to get into an argument
over merits of Apache versus IIS but corporate policy perceives Apache
as a quirky open source thing that poses a security risk. Having to
manually keep it up to date and the relatively large volume of security
bulletins appear to have contributed to this perception.

Walter, its not about Rack. There is a 10 steps document which doesn't
work and there are links to FastCGI and RubyForIIS which no longer
appear to be available. I guess I'm asking whethere there exists an
up-to-date and working Rails ISAPI module for IIS.

I appreciate the answers, but, why is everyone asking about my business
case for IIS?

Because you're telling us about a problem you have, and we're asking
you to back-up a little...

Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
committed to Microsoft technology.

Well, then you won't be using Rails, as it's not MS technology, and
you would be breaching your corporate policy if you did.
Alternatively, if you can meet your "policy" by using Windows servers,
but other software (like Apache, or even a *nix VM running on a
Windows-based hypervisor...) then Rails may be an option.

over merits of Apache versus IIS but corporate policy perceives Apache
as a quirky open source thing that poses a security risk.

As opposed to quirky closed source things that pose security risks?!
Sounds like you have a management-education problem :wink:

Michael Pavling wrote in post #1036557:

"Windows" is not necessarily "IIS" - it's perfectly possible to deploy
on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
the OP... that's likely to be much harder.

I am aware that you can install Apache on Windows and that may be an
option if I can persuade (using appropriate supportable arguments)
someone to approve it. Looking at some of the comments I Have come
across on other forums, they seem to concur with your last statement
that setting up on IIS is (or at least was at the time) rather complex.
However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
practical).

Hi,

    You can have a look at
        I used to work with .Net, now I'm developing with RoR (for a

year) from windows platform, and my recommendation will be to stay
with ubuntu + apache server for production, as much as I will
recommend to stay with windows + IIS for .Net applications and not
to use for
production (same case the opposite). It’s like having two cars one
with gasoline and the other with diesel, they can both work well
(not to say that one is better than the other one) and you can
eventually consider only buying gasoline because it’s the standard
and certificated fuel of the company and it might work for a while,
but is a bad long term decision.
Greetings,

Michael Pavling wrote in post #1036557:

"Windows" is not necessarily "IIS" - it's perfectly possible to deploy
on Windows (with Apache, Passenger, etc). Deploying with IIS as per
the OP... that's likely to be much harder.

I am aware that you can install Apache on Windows and that may be an
option if I can persuade (using appropriate supportable arguments)
someone to approve it. Looking at some of the comments I Have come
across on other forums, they seem to concur with your last statement
that setting up on IIS is (or at least was at the time) rather complex.
However, I am bound by corporate policy to at least explore the
possibility of using the native web server using other options only as a
last resort (i.e. where this can be proven not to be possible or
practical).

Well, that's understandable, and you have my sympathy (I left your
type of role for freelancing a few years ago, and was very glad to
leave the worst of the corporate politics behind :wink:

So; trying to be impartial [1], you have two choices. Stick to the
corporate policy. and develop in .Net MVC (I'm afraid I can't even
pass comment, because I've not been near it), or explain about the
increased RoI, opportunity costs, workforce happiness, and other
benefits of working with Rails.

Flipping the questions around: what's making you think that you would
like to commence your development with RoR? Do you have existing
skills in house?

PS I know of all sorts of large corporates that run Rails projects:
Virgin Media, the BBC, BaeSystems, among others... if it's good enough
for them, then maybe your bosses will reconsider whether it'll do for
you

[1] but not succeeding, I'm afraid :slight_smile:

Michael Pavling wrote in post #1036562:

Suffice it to say that I am bound by corporate policy which is now
committed to Microsoft technology.

Well, then you won't be using Rails, as it's not MS technology, and
you would be breaching your corporate policy if you did.

Well, let's just say that Ruby/Rails appears to be the natural way to
move on from Perl, but that's another argument....

As opposed to quirky closed source things that pose security risks?!

But at least we have Windows Update Services which ticks the relevant
box niceley....

Sounds like you have a management-education problem :wink:

Its an all eggs in one basket contract leading to a management-brainwash
problem :wink:

These guys were asking for feedback / testing on their rails on IIS
deployment solution a few months ago :
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/d5bce3a24648c991/f97652ab21d5ce28?lnk=gst&q=iis#f97652ab21d5ce28

Fred

Please look into Helicon Zoo:

http://www.helicontech.com/zoo/

It contains a Rack-based IIS adapter. I believe requires Ruby 1.9.2
minimum and work with IIS and IIS Express

The previous versions of Ruby/Rails for IIS will not work mainly
because:

* Where compiled with an incompatible version of Visual Studio that do
not link to the same version of the CRT and thus, segfaults.
* Is no longer maintained
* FastCGI (which was used for those IIS plugins) do not compile under
MinGW/GCC, which is the one used by latest Ruby installers.

Hope that helps.

Dont know about IIS but running rails on Windows is dog slow. I develop
on a Windows box and deploy on Linux and the speed difference is marked.
Have heard the same from others.

Pieter Hugo

Is that difference as noticeable if you run your Windows development
machine in "production" mode?...