Em 05-08-2012 18:07, Andrew Vit escreveu:
Rodrigo, your symlink strategy is yet another interesting idea...
But I don't think reinventing Bundler for javascripts is really a
solution to the problem. You can still wrap it in a gem and use
Bundler for that.
This isn't about reinventing Bundler as they would have quite different
goals and strategy.
I already currently wrap my JS libraries/frameworks in gems when they
don't already exist but replicating every JS library as a gem containing
just the assets just doesn't feel right to me.
Also, while I spend about 10 minutes to vendor jQuery-layout as a gem, I
think it could take a single minute to do the same through a DSL like
I've described. Upgrading the library version would be even faster with
the DSL approach, specially if you're the gem's author.
Think about this. Suppose there are a thousand interesting JS
libraries/frameworks out there that it would worth to package as a gem.
Then suppose there are 5 Ruby web frameworks willing to extend their
frameworks with plugins packaged as a gem and all of them decide to
package the assets as a gem. Then you could possibly have 5,000 gems in
the Ruby world that actually contain no Ruby code at all, except for the
plugin glue code that could be different for each web framework.
All of that just to make it easier for users to use a JS library/framework.
--
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.
