From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2001-10-30T10:29:09+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23793] Re: RubyGems Status (was: Re: Someinspirations from REBOL)

OK...here's an idea for making a Gem a Ruby executable file...

What if the file format was a Ruby document like...

  require "rubygems" #or whatever ;)
  include Gem unless kind_of? Gem

  begin_gem "RichsCoolGem"

  author="Rich Kilmer"
  version="1.1.3"
  requires="RyansCoolGem,0.0.2"
  requires="RobertsCoolGem,2.0.0"
  signature="...secure hash/signed..."
  public_key="...public key..."
  compression="LZO"
  encoding="BASE64"
  executable="myFile1.rb"

  [FILE=>"myFile1.rb", MIME_TYPE=>"text/ruby", VERSION=>"1.1.1"] = <<_FILE
  ...BASE64 ENCODED, LZO COMPRESSED FILE...
  _FILE
  [FILE=>"myFile2.rb", VERSION=>"1.0.2", COMPRESSION=>"ZLIB"] = <<_FILE
  ...BASE64 ENCODED, ZLIB COMPRESSED FILE...
  _FILE

  end_gem

the mixin "Gem" would provide these methods

  module Gem
    def begin_gem(name)
      @gem_name = name
    end
    def author=(author)
      @gem_author=author
    end
    ...etc...and...
    def []=(hash, data)
      @gem_files ||= {}
      @gem_files[hash[FILE]]=GemFile.new(hash, data)
    end
    def end_gem
      if __FILE__ == $0 && @gem_executable
	  ...run the file @gem_executable
      end
    end
    ...and lots of other nifty methods...
  end

and you could have a GemWrapper class

  class GemWrapper
    include Gem
    def initialize(file) #where file is ???.rbg
      #eval file contents into GemWrapper instance
    end
  end

What do you think?

-Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:nconway@klamath.dyndns.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:21 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:23786] Re: RubyGems Status (was: Re:
> Someinspirations 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
>