Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mmm ... what are you trying to achieve here?
a) /usr/share/js isn't served by any of our standard webserver installs;
files you place in here aren't downloadable
Yes, sorry :) I already realized that it was a bad idea.
b) web-based apps will expect
While I agree that it is certainly easier to keep the packages as
UPSTREAM bundles them, I'm not convinced that this is always a good
idea. If the effort is small, I'd rather patch the package to use the
standard libraries and send the patch upstream. Not only because it's
simply bad
But it is not very hard to avoid to hardwire these libs in your
webapp :) This is the only thing I dislike.
Mmm ... you'd be surprised, I think, about just how hard it actually is
for PHP apps (and how expensive it is too).
Another problem to consider is versioning of any shared libraries of
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it is not very hard to avoid to hardwire these libs in your
webapp :) This is the only thing I dislike.
Mmm ... you'd be surprised, I think, about just how hard it actually is
for PHP apps (and how expensive it is too).
Guess I'm missing the
Thanks for making me aware of the issue. So let's hope for PHP5...
No problem. I wish it was an idea we could implement. Alas, it's
something that none of the scripting languages handle well. Even Ruby
hasn't learned from the past mistakes in this area.
Best regards,
Stu
--
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Thanks for making me aware of the issue. So let's hope for PHP5...
No problem. I wish it was an idea we could implement. Alas, it's
something that none of the scripting languages handle well. Even Ruby
hasn't learned from the past mistakes in this area.
Ruby
:41
To: gentoo-web-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-web-user] Java Script Libraries
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Thanks for making me aware of the issue. So let's hope for PHP5...
No problem. I wish it was an idea we could implement. Alas, it's
something that none of the scripting
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hrm ... all the code I've seen uses:
require_gem package-name
with no sign of version requirements passed around. How does Gems
handle the versioning in the background?
Best regards,
Stu
That code is implicitly saying use the latest version of
package-name.
