From: Neil Conway <nconway@...>
Date: 2001-10-30T09:20:55+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23786] Re: RubyGems Status (was: Re: Some	inspirations from REBOL)

On Mon, 2001-10-29 at 18:56, Robert Feldt wrote:
> I agree. One nice thing with making all gems valid Ruby programs in
> themselves is that people could actually add custom make and install
> procedures etc. while still being valid gems. This way one and the same
> gem can be used both
> 
>   * As a jar file which need not be unpacked to be by interpreter
>   * As a distribution format - just do "ruby --make gem" and it will
>     unpack and build extensions etc and then "ruby --install gem" and it
>     installs.
>   * As an executable Ruby program - Simply "ruby gem" and it will run (if
>     its a runnable gem, otherwise just say no.

These are all good ideas, IMHO. Another possible usage for a Ruby
archive format is similar to Java's WAR -- a "web application archive".
The WAR contains a complete web app and some special resources, so that
all the admin need to do is copy the .war file into the appropriate
directory on the system and the servlet container takes care of
everything else that is needed to get the web app running.

In practice, WAR is pretty basic, but I think the general idea is a good
one. I don't have any specific ideas about a WAR-like format for Ruby
(we need a web container first), but I think that making the format
extensible enough to allow for specialized archives like this would be a
good idea.

Cheers,

Neil

-- 
Neil Conway <neilconway@home.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC