Software Alternatives, Accelerators & Startups
Register | Login
m

SimpleHTTPServer VS mongrel

Compare SimpleHTTPServer VS mongrel and see what are their differences

LibHunt
LibHunt tracks mentions of software libraries on relevant social networks. Based on that data, you can find the most popular projects and their alternatives. featured
Contents:
  1. » Base Details
  2. » Videos
  3. » Reviews
  4. » Alternatives

SimpleHTTPServer logo SimpleHTTPServer

Serve a single directory over HTTP

mongrel logo mongrel

A small fast HTTP library and server that runs Rails, Camping, Nitro and Iowa apps.
  • SimpleHTTPServer Landing page
    Landing page //
    2021-09-22
  • mongrel Landing page
    Landing page //
    2021-10-20

SimpleHTTPServer features and specs

  • Ease of Use
    SimpleHTTPServer is extremely easy to use, requiring just a single command to spin up a basic web server, making it ideal for quick testing and development purposes.
  • No Installation Required
    As a standard module in Python 2.7, SimpleHTTPServer does not require any additional installation processes, reducing setup time for developers.
  • Platform Independent
    Being part of Python's standard library, it is platform-independent and can run on any system that supports Python.

Possible disadvantages of SimpleHTTPServer

  • Security
    SimpleHTTPServer lacks security features like HTTPS, authentication mechanisms, and protection against vulnerabilities, which makes it unsuitable for production environments.
  • Limited Functionality
    Designed for serving static files, SimpleHTTPServer lacks advanced functionalities like CGI scripting or integration with databases needed for dynamic content serving.
  • Obsolete
    Being a part of Python 2.7 which is no longer maintained, SimpleHTTPServer is obsolete, and users are encouraged to use Python 3, specifically the http.server module for better functionality and support.
  • Single Threaded
    By default, SimpleHTTPServer handles requests sequentially in a single-threaded manner, which can result in performance bottlenecks when handling multiple requests simultaneously.

mongrel features and specs

  • Simplicity
    Mongrel is known for its straightforward setup and ease of use, particularly advantageous for developers who want a lightweight and easy-to-configure HTTP server for Ruby applications.
  • Performance
    Mongrel offers good performance for handling HTTP requests, making it suitable for serving small to medium-sized Ruby applications efficiently.
  • Compatibility
    It supports many Ruby web frameworks, which makes it versatile for various types of Ruby applications, including Rails, Merb, and Camping.
  • Community Support
    Being a popular choice in the past, it has garnered substantial community support, resources, and tutorials available for troubleshooting and learning.

Possible disadvantages of mongrel

  • Lack of Maintenance
    Mongrel is no longer actively maintained, which may pose security risks and compatibility issues with newer versions of Ruby and other software.
  • Scalability
    It is not as scalable as more modern web servers like Puma or Unicorn, often requiring more effort to manage workloads for larger applications.
  • Limited Features
    Mongrel lacks some of the advanced features found in newer web servers, such as multi-threading and robust process management, which can limit its use for complex, high-demand applications.
  • Obsolescence
    With the rise of more modern and efficient web servers, Mongrel has largely been eclipsed and is not the go-to choice for new Ruby applications.

SimpleHTTPServer videos

No SimpleHTTPServer videos yet. You could help us improve this page by suggesting one.

Add video

mongrel videos

+ Add

Mongrel K9 Boots Review: Unleashing Style, Comfort, and Durability

More videos:

  • Review - Mongrel Boots - The 3 Reasons They Are Best Sellers
  • Review - Mongrel Boots Review. Before and After a Season of Fieldwork.

Category Popularity

0-100% (relative to SimpleHTTPServer and mongrel)

SimpleHTTPServer

mongrel

Web And Application Servers
39 39%
Web And Application Servers
61% 61
Web Servers
42 42%
Web Servers
58% 58
Application Server
40 40%
Application Server
60% 60
Events
100 100%
Events
0% 0

User comments

Share your experience with using SimpleHTTPServer and mongrel. For example, how are they different and which one is better?
Log in or Post with

Social recommendations and mentions

Based on our record, mongrel seems to be more popular. It has been mentiond 1 time since March 2021. We are tracking product recommendations and mentions on various public social media platforms and blogs. They can help you identify which product is more popular and what people think of it.

SimpleHTTPServer mentions (0)

We have not tracked any mentions of SimpleHTTPServer yet. Tracking of SimpleHTTPServer recommendations started around Mar 2021.

mongrel mentions (1)

  • Why am I getting an Apache Proxy 503 error?
    Now after restart, we get a 503 error when trying to visit the domain connected to Redmine. It's hooked up to a Mongrel daemon, and we use Apache Proxy to direct all connections to the port Redmine is running on. Source: almost 3 years ago

What are some alternatives?

When comparing SimpleHTTPServer and mongrel, you can also consider the following products

lighttpd - A secure, fast, compliant, and very flexible web-server that has been optimized for high-performance environments

nginx - A high performance free open source web server powering busiest sites on the Internet.

Apache HTTP Server - Apache httpd has been the most popular web server on the Internet since April 1996

nanoweb - Nanoweb is an HTTP server written in PHP, designed to be small, secure, and extensible.

Cherokee - High-performance web server

Microsoft IIS - Internet Information Services is a web server for Microsoft Windows

Loading...