3 ms·
Though they just fucked it up in the betas by depending on rubygems-1.3.6, it's not so hard to get it running on Heroku. You run the rake tasks to copy the publ
by blasdel 17y ago
Though they just fucked it up in the betas by depending on rubygems-1.3.6, it's not so hard to get it running on Heroku. You run the rake tasks to copy the public directories from extensions to the root one locally before pushing, you pre-cache the generated CSS (not a problem in the betas, they eliminated sass), and setup asset image uploads to go to S3.
The real problem with hosting Spree on Heroku is having to spend $100/m for an IP for SSL. The actual cost for setting up ELB instances to get extra IPs for SSL is $20/m. That's a problem when you want to set up a bunch of differently branded storefronts. It's the main reason why I'm doing DIY with http://github.com/wr0ngway/rubber/ http://github.com/wr0ngway/rubber/ instead of using Heroku for the spree project I'm working on right now.
- hopeless 17y agoThe SSL thing is really annoying and expensive but I think there's sufficient demand/pressure that Heroku will find a better alternative... possibly with the help of Amazon.
- jackowayed 17y agoThey really need to. If the thing you're doing is important enough that you need SSL (and a custom domain), you have to be pretty big for SSL not to be prohibitively expensive. SSL alone is as expensive as a 1.5 GB slice from slicehost. I know it's not really their fault, but they need to work with amazon to get several IPs for each of their images, or something.