From: Assaph Mehr <assaph@...>
Date: 2005-03-18T11:29:55+09:00
Subject: Re: encapsulating rubygems so that my users don't need to be aware of it


> Again, the critique is correct. Then forget all except my first and
> current post in this thread, and look at the one called "monster" in
the
> first post. That does the job...

D'oh! Should have read in time order...

> > In Instiki/Pimki we tackle this like so: the tgz includes the libs
> > needed, while the gem version does not but does specify them as
> > dependencies. When starting we test if this is a gem or not and
know
> > how to require the necessary libs. Does this help?
>
> Well, maybe I'll choose a different distribution scheme, but that's
not
> the heart of the matter.
>
> The problem is that if you want to shield your users from package
> mana-gem-ent issues, you have to add clutter to your code, this way
or
> that. As I read, you are doing this as well. I'm just looking for a
> somewhat "lite" or elegant solution. No dice yet.

Ha! Wait until you get into mismatching gem version management. You
_have_ to specify the version of the gem you want, otherwise clients
might have a wrong version. Seriously, see who your users are. If you
think you need to encapsulate as much as possible (i.e. non developers
:) then I think it's best to ship together those versions you can
trust to work with your app.

If you ever come across a better scheme (especially a lite one :),
share it with the world! There are lots of us who'd love to know.

> Maybe we have to live with it, until gems are either embraced
properly
> and will be integrated into official ruby or will be completely
> discarded. This hanging-in-the-middle state is somewhat weird.

I think Matz is inclined to do so in the future (especially now that
RPA seems to have slowed down somewhat), but that is in the far future
probably.

Cheers,
Assaph