Re: [tlug] A Ruby question

["Zev Blut" <zb@??>]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:06:03 +0900, Alain Hoang <hoanga@??>  
wrote:

> burlingk@?? wrote:

> >  I see that information on ruby lists rbx, rhtml, ruby, and rb as
> > extensions associated with ruby scripts and libraries.
>
> .rbx    -> Not sure off the top of my head

I believe it is the Windows extension.

> >  Which of these is most appropriate for a serverside script that would  
> > be
> > accessed via a web browser (or rather which seems to be the most
> > commonly used), and which would be so for a shell script?
>
> 	I'd say it depends.  Some people might like to stick with
> cgi as the file extension name in the case they decide to swap out the
> implementation CGI script with another language or make it transparent
> to the user that the only thing they should really be aware of is that
> it is a cgi program of sort.
> 	Some people would use .rb since they want to identify the
> script as a ruby file and also it might be easier for identification
> purposes if you're trying to use something like mod_ruby in your
> webserver.
>
>
> 	I'm sure our other Ruby hackers on this ML will have their
> own thoughts to add.

Yes, .rb and.cgi are the most common.  Of course, there is a school of
thought that says your URLS should not show the programming language
you are using.  I personally lean towards this route.

Thus instead of http://tlug.jp/foo.rb you have http://tlug.jp/foo

Cheers,
Zev