What about this scenario. You use Rails and have several developers working on the project. You have several environments and lots of machines in each one.
Plugins are great since you don't have to put on your "Ops" hat and alter your chef recipes (if you even have automated build scripts) so you can update gems on all the machines. In addition not all developers will have access to install gems on machines so plugins can alleviate some of this headache. My main gripe about plugins as noted above, (besides the slow start time) is keeping them updated, especially if you patch them for a bug fix or some customization. So I agree with the gripes but I still find them very useful. On Dec 7, 7:00 pm, Michael Koziarski <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think there's a compelling cost in *using* plugins. If plugins were > > no longer supported, developers would be forced to build gems. As it > > is, every project I work on seems to have one or two plugins that > > won't make the switch. Maintaining them as submodules or some other > > oft-horrific process is costly compared to the ease of gems and > > bundler. > > Plugins which aren't being maintained wouldn't magically have been > maintained if the authors had been told to use gems instead of > plugins. Your application upgrade process would have been just as > hard there with a gem which wasn't updated as it was > > > If you're sharing anything between your apps, you benefit from using a > > gem. It's easier than git submodules or any equivalent. The only way > > a plugin is easier to manage (in my experience) is if you're just > > copying it in and not backing it with its own source control. And > > let's hope no poor souls are doing that. And if they insist, they > > still have the lib directory. > > The lib directory doesn't give you an init.rb which is automatically > required at the right moment. > > I'm all for de-emphasing plugins maybe. Removing the plugin > generator, putting gems first in guides. But that's something else > entirely for someone who just wants to dump a monkeypatch into their > app. > > > > > You're right: 91 lines isn't much to maintain. But that's not the > > cost that concerns me. > > > Peter > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > -- > 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.
