I like the plugins-as-gems approach. I never personally saw a reason for any difference between plugins and gems, which is why I write my plugins to be supported as both. Is the only thing holding back a plugins-as-gems approach RubyGems's inability to support multiple search paths? (at least, that's what I think I had read a while back)
On Sep 19, 12:02 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ignoring anything about requiring specific versions, couldn't this be > > achieved by having all of the plugins added to the load path before > > any init.rb files are evaluated (my suggestion above)? That way the > > normal Ruby "require" would seem to provide everything that you > > describe here. > > This sounds like it's probably harmless and could solve a bunch of the > different issues people have been mentioning. If you wanted to take a > look at this, I'd be happy to apply it. > > We're definitely not going to go down the route of a massive > dependency system of our own. Rubygems does this kind of thing > already, and perhaps we just need to go down the plugins-as-gems > approach. > > Either way, I'd be open to applying a patch to add :all to > config.plugins or the load order changing, but that's about it for > 2.0. > > -- > Cheers > > Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
