I see three potential approaches for handling error pages (404, 500, etc. errors):
1. With Static Pages:
◦ Pros:
▪️ Fast response time as pages are served directly from the web server.
▪️ Can be easily cached by the web server (e.g., nginx).
▪️ Works even if the Rails application is down.
◦ Cons:
▪️ Harder to update and maintain.
▪️ Requires separate files for each locale.
▪️ Less flexibility for dynamic content.
[Rails guide](https://guides.rubyonrails.org/action_controller_overview.html#the-default-500-and-404-templates)
2. With Controller:
◦ Pros:
▪️ Dynamic rendering allows for easy updates and changes.
▪️ Can leverage Rails I18n for localization.
▪️ Maintains consistency with the rest of the application.
◦ Cons:
▪️ May add additional load to the server.
▪️ Potentially slower response time compared to static pages.
▪️ Requires the Rails environment to be loaded.
[Example](https://webcrunch.com/posts/custom-error-page-ruby-on-rails)
3. With Middleware:
◦ Pros:
▪️ Can handle error pages without involving the controller.
▪️ Provides flexibility in how errors are handled and rendered.
▪️ Can be used to add custom logic or logging.
◦ Cons:
▪️ Additional complexity in middleware setup.
▪️ Over-engineered solution for simple error page rendering.
▪️ Potential performance impact if not implemented efficiently.
[Info](https://www.scaler.com/topics/ruby-on-rails/rails-rack-middleware/)
I have experimented with all three approaches and see that the ErrorsController option is the most suitable. However, I would like to understand the specific use cases for the other two approaches. I’m interested in specific situations where these solutions are applicable.
Additionally, is it viable to render more frequently requested error pages like 404 and 500 as static pages from the public folder, while handling other error pages through the ErrorsController?
Leonid Traykovskiy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.