[Dancer-users] deployment problems with apache + starman

[Assaf Gordon]

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