On 6/14/11 9:09 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:53:16 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP11
Why this is a bad idea:
1) It hard-codes URLs in source code. Projects often move to other
code-hosting services. PHP, Python, Perl, not sure about Ruby all have a
central website which stores package metadata.
The way I see it, transitivity should take care of this. Consider:
// File http://dsource.org/libs/mysql.d
pragma(liburl, mysql, "http://some.site.org/d/mysql.d";)
import mysql;
// User file
pragma(liburl, dsource, "http://dsource.org/libs/";);
import dsource.mysql;
With transitivity you can arrange central repos via an additional level
of indirection.
2) It requires that the raw source code be available via HTTP. Not all
code hosting services allow this. GitHub will redirect all HTTP requests
to HTTPS.
URL includes https and ftp.
3) It only solves the problem for D modules, but not any other possible
dependencies.
Correct. So we should extend this towards handling other scenarios too.
I understand that this is a very urgent problem, but my opinion is that
this half-arsed solution will only delay implementing and cause
migration problems to a real solution, which should be able to handle
svn/hg/git checkout, proper packages with custom build scripts,
versioning, miscellaneous dependencies, publishing, etc.
Finding weakness in a proposal is easy. The more difficult thing to do
is to find ways to improve it or propose alternatives.
Andrei
