Routes.rb vs机架重写vs nginx/apache重写规则

问题描述

我有几十个针对旧URL的重写规则，这些规则来自于我的应用程序的前身.我看到三个选择:

I have dozens of rewrite rules for legacy URLs from a previous incarnation of my application.I see three choices:

1. 只需在路由文件(config/routes.rb)中添加匹配"行
2. 使用机架重写
3. 创建Nginx/Apache重写规则(在我的情况下为Nginx)

我想3的性能要比2的性能好，而2的性能要好于1.

I imagine that 3 has better performance than 2, which has better performance than 1.

我的问题:

• 是真的吗?
• 如果是这样，有什么关系?
• 还有我可能没有考虑过的其他折衷方案吗?
• 除了这三个以外，还有其他选择吗?

推荐答案

1. 是的，您的表演顺序正确无误.
2. 取决于您的站点，流量，这些重写规则的点击次数-性能很可能远不及可维护性重要.
3. 可维护性-使用您所知道的以及开发人员所知道的. Apache的重写语法很容易出错，并且往往是 Write-Once-Read-Never . Nginx的挺不错，但仍然是您和开发人员学习的新DSL. rack-rewrite与Apache相反，实际上很难犯一个错误，因为它是如此简单(我认为它比routes.rb更简单)
4. 一个都不值得评估的人.

1. Yes, you have the performance order correct.
2. Depends on your site, the traffic, the number of hits on those rewrite rules - in all likelihood the performance matters a lot less than the maintainability.
3. Maintainability - use what you know, and what your developers know. Apache's rewrite syntax is easy to get wrong, and tends to be quite Write-Once-Read-Never. Nginx's is quite nice, but still a new DSL for you and your devs to learn. rack-rewrite is the inverse of Apache, it's actually hard to make a mistake because it's so simple (I think it's simpler than routes.rb)
4. None worth evaluating.

这篇关于Routes.rb vs机架重写vs nginx/apache重写规则的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！