On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Josh Susser wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Gabe da Silveira wrote: > >> On 9/19/07, Pascal Belloncle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I like the approach, a lot. But (isn't there always a but...), isn't >> this going to be a problem for people using shared hosting, or people >> that just can't install gems? Unless there is an easy way to locally >> install gems... >> >> On any decent shared host you can install your own gems. If you >> can't then you will be in for a world of hurt anyway, and frankly, >> the world of shared Rails hosting is too low of a common >> denominator too target. There are too many issues with memory and >> stability as it is, so I say we make Rails do the best thing it >> can assuming a VPS or dedicated box, and then let the shared hosts >> figure out how to make it work for $5/month. >> >> Putting Rails' weight behind the gem system seems like a win-win >> to me. > > You can also freeze gems into the vendor directory. Now what's the > downside compared to plugins in vendor? Should have thought of that. I suppose that would be workable. I'm sure someone could even come up with a script that downloads a gem and installs it directly into vendor.
That takes care of my concern :) Cheers, Pascal. -- http://blog.nanorails.com > > -- > Josh Susser > http://blog.hasmanythrough.com > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
