From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-04-18T09:29:33+09:00
Subject: Re: All Quiet on the Western Front: Is Rails overshadowing Ruby?


Tobias Luetke wrote:
> > I think versioning is great, but maybe RubyGems went a little
overboard
> > in separating itself from tradtional methodologies. For instance,
was
> > it really neccessary to make binaries indirect loads? Why could
Gems
> > have not installed libs to the standard location and just kept
track of
> > what it put there? Versions could have been handled via directory
> > stucture and symlinks to the latest version. Then it would make
sense
> > to have a #require_version method.
>
> No. This is just not how versions are used in reality. I'm absolutely
> puzzled by the amount of negative press gem receives for this
> immensely useful feature!
>
> I use require_gem all over the place to tie applications to versions.
> For example one production server is running 6 different rails
> applications, 4 of which are tied to specific older releases of gems,
> redcloth and others.
>
> Versioned libraries aren't a neat feature, they are absolutely
> required for everyone who is serious about ruby. Please don't talk
> this feature down because it doesn't look nice in your cron
> scripts....

Tobias, you misunderstand me. I am all for versioning. Its the
implementation of it that I think has been problematic. Consider all
your scripts with #require_gem. Would they work in an enviroment where
the support packages were manually installed. No. You'd have to go back
and change them to #require; or have created a rescue clause to deal
with it to begin with; and thus more work to do in order to
redistribute you programs. Rather I think there should be a standard
method #require_version that Ruby supports out-of-the-box, and the libs
should be stored in the typical fashion --with links to the lastest
versions (examples of such excelent packaging systems include RubyX and
Gobo Linux). Implementing in this manner would have, indeed, still can,
thwart the issues with RUBYOPT.
T.