From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2011-06-17T01:33:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Plugin best practices



On Jun 15, 4:33 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 5:33 AM, Intransition wrote:
>
> > Yea, I was afraid you would say that ;-)
>
> > Technically speaking this is a bad idea. The reason is that if someone
> > wanted to install a project in the traditional site ruby locations
> > (e.g. via setup.rb),
>
> (How many ruby packages have a setup.rb anymore, and who uses them?  Is it even 5% of rubyists? 1%?)
>
> > then there is the potential for file name
> > conflicts such that the last package installed will clobber the file
> > from a previous package.
>
> If everybody agreed to foo-bar.rb instead of foo/bar.rb that wouldn't solve the problem as they both share the same name.
>
> Giving two implementations the same file name is a social problem, not a technical problem.  We can't solve this with a technical solution.

If my plugin for `foo` is `bar` then my lib file will be `foo-bar.rb`
and my gem's name `foo-bar`. So you won't have the same name, because
I already have that gem. Clearly your gem and require will be `foo-
baz`. No clash.