On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Jim Freeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So, I did not realize that require_gem was such a loaded word. And >> somehow is sucked in autorequire. Who mentioned that? > > You did, but you didn't realize it.
No, I didn't. > #require_gem *was* a method that would work like this: > > require_gem 'pdf-writer', '= 1.1.8' > > Looks a lot like the #gem method, right? Well, it is almost exactly > like the #gem method, except that it did one other thing: it looked at > the autorequire field in the gem spec, and then loaded whatever file > (or files?) were in there. What I am suggesting will NOT use autorequire. Really. Not. Nada. > If I install ParseTree (for example) with "apt-get ruby-parsetree", > should I expect the ParseTree gem to be installed? Well, ideally, yes. > But the Debian maintainers, in their infinite wisdom, don't like > RubyGems and don't use it so far as I can tell. So, if I've got a > script that runs on multiple platforms, including a Debian system, I > have to make my program look something like this in a #bunny_foo_foo > world: > > begin > bunny_foo_foo 'ParseTree' > rescue <something> > require 'ParseTree' > end Ok, now we are getting somewhere. The same applies today with rubygems. begin require 'some-lib' rescue LoadError require 'rubygems' require 'some-lib' end > Which is just what you're already complaining about. Note that I put No, it's not. And I'm not complaining. I am getting complaints. Man, doesn't anyone read. :/ > It might be NoMethodError (because if you don't have RubyGems > installed, you don't have #bunny_foo_foo); it might be LoadError; it Actually, bunny_foo_foo could be built in. > This is a real problem, but it's the same problem that exists on any > packaging system. You want the package names to be sensible, but a > package may offer more than just one thing to load. Consider Facets. > While I don't particularly like this library, it's an excellent > example of the problem: it's a mega-library that contains a lot of > different useful functionality that you don't always want to load all > of it all of the time. Yes, this suggestion won't work for multi-featured gems. Rails is a good example too. > Does Trans force people to install 25 gems to allow an autorequire > mechanism to work on a fine-grained enough level (which means you now > have to remember 25 different gem names...), or does he go with one > gem that people choose "require 'facet/feature1'" and "require > 'facet/feature2'" instead? And, if they want, he could offer a > lib/facets.rb that includes all 25 features. Again with that autorequire thing. Are all computer people so locked in to existing ideas they can't see alternatives. What if bunny_foo_foo took arguments. bunny_foo_foo 'facets', :feature_2459592 >> Today, gem developers can solve this problem in >> the following manner: >> >> sudo gem install bora_bora >> .... >> require 'rubygems' >> require 'bora_bora' # look, no surprise here. >> >> where the bora_bora gem has included the file lib/bora_bora.rb with the >> contents >> >> require 'my/crazy/path/that/you/cant/guess' >> >> But, we can refactor these two lines into a single line >> >> require_gem 'bora_bora' >> >> I mean >> >> bunny_foo_foo 'bora_bora' # optional version follows >> >> So, here the file lib/bora_bora does not have to exist. It could >> possibly be lib/bootstrap.rb. This file will then require the correct >> files. You know, the mysterious ones that I've been getting complaints >> on. >> >> Also, notice there is no suggestion of autorequire here. This simply >> replaces the "require 'secret/path'". > > It's still autorequire, even if bunny_foo_foo looks for lib/bootstrap.rb. > > Why? If I have five gems with lib/bootstrap.rb, what happens when I do: > > require 'bootstrap' > > One of them will be activated, but it may not be the one you expect. I expect the same thing I have today (that magically doesn't use autorequire). I have 5 versions of the sequel gem. What happens when I do: require 'rubygems' require 'sequel' It requires the latest version. What is so special about this that it doesn't use autorequire, but bunny_foo_foo does? -- Jim Freeze _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
