On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Pito <[email protected]> wrote: > I've tried to answer this myself, with my friends and on the rails > list. No joy, > > I got to thinking that something subtle changed between rails 2.3.x > and 2.3.5 which I don't know about. > > I am troubleshooting a weird scenario where a rails app works on one > machine's environment but fails on another machine. The error is: > "uninitialized constant REXML::Document" > > It is easily solved by adding require 'rexml/document' to the > appropriate source file. But the mystery is, why is that line not > ALWAYS needed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unusual_software_bug#Schroedinbug > So my question is, is there a mechanism similar to dependencies.rb > that under certain circumstances implicitly would do the 'require'? > > --- > > (Another theory is that some totally different gem has a 'requre rexml/ > document' in it, and that totally different gem is missing on the non- > working setup, and for some reason the absence of that gem is not > causing it's own error. but I doubt that theory.) > > > -- > 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. > > > >
-- 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.
