[ruby-core:32211] Re: merging nokogiri to ext/

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:33:07PM +0900, Yusuke ENDOH wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> 2010/9/9 Aaron Patterson <[e-mail]>:
> >>  pros:
> >>   - newbie tends to search library from stdlib first, but REXML
> >>     should not be used.  By deprecating REXML (but not unbundled)
> >>     and providing Nokogiri, we can indicate to newbie the right
> >>     road.
> >>
> >>     -> rebuttal: even if it is really needed, it is enough to
> >>        deprecate REXML.
> >
> > I agree with this rebuttal.  No XML parser is better than a poor one.
> > OTOH, it seems that people like having an XML parser ship with Ruby.
> > Why not ship a good one?
>=20
> I agree that people want Nokogiri.  But if we import a library to ruby
> package whenever people want it, ruby package will become too huge.

Can you elaborate on the criteria required for importing a library to
stdlib?  I do not understand the requirements.

> Thus it is a weak reason, unfortunately.
> We need more convincing motivation.  For example, if rubygems depend
> on Nokogiri, it would be very convincing :-)

It's difficult for me to fulfill requirements that are unknown.  :-(
If rubygems dependency is all that is needed, I'm happy to make a few
changes to rubygems.  ;-)

> >>   - Nokogiri may not preserve separate releases
> >
> > I'm not sure about this.  Other stdlib package have had separate
> > releases (rake, etc).  Though, I hope that stdlib is turned to gems so
> > this is easier (I'll respond to the gems thread).
>=20
> As I said in [ruby-core:32054] and [ruby-core:32066], rake, etc. are
> NEVER going well.  I don't like to add new source of trouble.
>=20
> Indeed, this problem may be solved by converting stdlibs to gems.
> But it has some objections and is still under discussion.  We should
> not rely on the assumption at this time.

We should continue this conversation in the "stdlib as gem" thread.  But
I do not agree with this as a negative point when it is apparent to me
that the problem with stdlib maintenance is not for lack of willingness,
but for lack of process.

I might be wrong, but I can't accept this negative point without
discussing the stdlib / gem problem further.  IMO, the stdlib problem is
a cyclic problem.  Are stdlib packages so bug-free that users are
willing to wait the 1+ year release cycle of Ruby?  The people who are
not willing to wait will give up on stdlib, thus making stdlib rot.

Without users, we do not improve.

> > I think the best options to improve the situation are:
> >
> >   1. Remove REXML so that users must search for an XML library
> >
> >   2. Package nokogiri so that users have a better alternative
> >
> >   3. Remove REXML *and* package nokogiri
> >
> > I understand we cannot remove REXML for 1.9.x, but maybe we should
> > consider packaging nokogiri so people have an alternative?  I would like
> > to see #2 for Ruby 1.9.3+, then #3 for Ruby 2.0.
>=20
> The point of issue is, why is this not enough?
>=20
>   0. Deprecate REXML so that users must search for an XML library

I think removing REXML would improve our world.  But I also think that
XML parsing is very important to Ruby users.  Forcing Ruby users to search
for an XML library because we couldn't bundle a decent one makes me sad.

I think that any one of the solutions I listed would improve things.  I
just don't like the first one.

--=20
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/