From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2005-03-04T14:57:11+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby gems, and the require problem (was Re: RAA Status & b)

* Sam Roberts <sroberts@uniserve.com> [2005-03-04 14:37:28 +0900]:

> MY CODE. IT'S MY CODE. Argh.
> 
> I wrote the script, I put it in the package, and I have to make two
> versions of it, one assuming that my package was installed with ruby
> gems in default mode, the other assuming ruby gems wasn't used or that
> the user did "gem deploy".

If I understand correctly, you shouldn't have to make 
to versions of a script that is in a library.
The person writing code calling your lib needs 
to be careful (see below), but your library 
(ie code in your package) shouldn't have to
be conscious that it is a gem or not.

> gems has created two distinct dialects of ruby, one uses ruby's require,
> and the other uses the gems require, of the same name. Code written in
> ruby's dialect won't work with gems without hacking the code, or hacking
> the environment.
> 
> Code written with the require_gems won't work for people who don't have
> gems, even if they have the libraries.

Is it really that much trouble to write:

  begin
    require 'some-lib'
  rescue LoadError
    require 'rubygems'
    require 'some-lib'
  end

Maybe we could get this added to the std distro, assuming
the gems ships with the std distro.

-- 
Jim Freeze
Code Red. Code Ruby