[ruby-core:28229] Re: Removing Syck from ruby

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 07:48:20PM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> (2010/02/18 16:22), Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > I would like to move my replacement (Psych[1]) in to ruby's svn so that
> > people can start migrating to the new API.
> 
> You can import Psych to ruby's svn whe you think it is near to complete
> because Psych will use other than ext/syck. (ext/psych?)
> So both of ext/syck and ext/psych can be.

Having both syck and psych in ext is fine, except that both syck and
psych provide Object#to_yaml.  When psych is imported to ext, I would
like it to provide the implementation of Object#to_yaml.

> After Matz agree the name of the lib (ext/psych) and the class (Psych? YAML?),
> you can import it.

Sounds good!  :-D

> > Psych has a *mostly* compatible API with Syck.  Since Psych uses
> > libyaml, that means it follows the YAML spec more closely than Syck
> > does.  This means that switching from Syck to Psych /will/ break things.
> > 
> > To ensure a smooth transition, I am working with the rails team[2], and
> > with Eric (for rubygems support).
> > 
> > Is this a good plan?
> 
> Following YAML spec breaks Syck compatibility,
> so working with Rails, the heavy and maniac user of YAML, is good.

Yes, I will make sure Rails team is happy.

> > I would like to remove Syck from ruby, and release it as a gem that I
> > will maintain.  That way people depending on the legacy behaviors of
> > Syck will not be let down, though they will be highly encouraged to
> > upgrade.
> 
> This is also good thing.

I think removing Syck from ruby and shipping it as a gem is better than
shipping two YAML parsers and emitters with Ruby.  In my opinion, it
will be confusing to have two.  When someone writes:

  require 'yaml'

Which one will they use?  I'm afraid that if we ship syck *or* don't
make psych default, no one will upgrade from syck.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/