From: Konrad Meyer <konrad@...>
Date: 2007-12-26T06:33:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Legacy support (Was: Base64 not there makes Rails 2.0.2 fail to load in 1.9.0)

--nextPart1280608.ozsBzDvR29
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Quoth M. Edward (Ed) Borasky:
> hemant wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 2007 1:01 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wro=
te:
> >> Eric Hodel wrote:
> >>> On Dec 25, 2007, at 07:03 AM, Richard Kilmer wrote:
> >>>> Just re-built latest svn of 1.9.0 and base64.rb is removed.  Its
> >>>> required in active_support (conversions.rb).  Do you think its worth
> >>>> having all libraries that were removed from Ruby in 1.9.0 moved into=
 a
> >>>> "legacy gem" or something?  I am sure the rails guys will catch this
> >>>> and remove the dependency since its not going to be supported going
> >>>> forward, but this kind of thing may happen to other libraries.
> >>> I don't think a legacy gem should be created.  This doesn't encourage
> >>> people to switch to the new way of doing things, whatever that is.  (=
=46or
> >>> base64, use [str].pack 'm*'.)
> >>>
> >>> People have asked me to alias require_gem for RubyGems 1.x, and I will
> >>> not.  Software depending on it won't get fixed if it stays around.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yeah ... I'm with you on this one, having just discovered that two gem=
s,
> >> rcov and hpricot, need to be updated to work with 1.9 anyhow. Should
> >> there be some kind of "master list" of the "commonly used gems" that
> >> need updating so they'll work with either 1.8 or 1.9? So far I have
> >>
> >> 1. rcov
> >> 2. hpricot
> >> 3. active_support
> >>
> >=20
> > Yes lots, Almost ALL C extensions would require some kinda tinkering.
> > My broken lib list is:
> > mysql, mongrel, eventmachine
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
> 1. Isn't there a pure Ruby mysql gem?
>=20
> 2. Given that the core Ruby 1.9 virtual machine is so much faster than
> the core Ruby 1.8 "virtual machine", and that Koichi is still tweaking
> it, and that Charlie Nutter et. al. on jRuby are still tweaking the
> jRuby implementations of both 1.8 and 1.9, shouldn't gem developers be
> looking at porting their stuff back to pure Ruby whenever possible? I
> can understand C interface code for OS-specific functionality, but is it
> really that necessary for raw speed any more?
>=20
> Of the list I see here (rcov, hpricot, active_support, mysql,
> eventmachine and mongrel) I think only eventmachine and mongrel "really
> need" C-level code.

IIRC much of hpricot is actually generated from some grammar or something.=
=20
It's not actually written in C.

But to answer your first question, no, pure-ruby isn't fast enough yet.

=2D-=20
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> http://konrad.sobertillnoon.com/

--nextPart1280608.ozsBzDvR29
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHcXceCHB0oCiR2cwRAt5/AJsEIAgUDaNILYyC+DhV5gpJ4pkdvwCdFJJa
CX6DtW1NBbtTy8vGeO4/lrA=
=Y2dN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1280608.ozsBzDvR29--