[#393742] Getting the class of an object. — Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@...32.com>

Consider;

14 messages 2012/03/06

[#393815] arcadia IDE requires tcl/tk and ruby-tk — Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@...>

which or where tcl and tk does arcadia require? Is this a gem which I

13 messages 2012/03/13

[#393952] What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

Hi!

18 messages 2012/03/21
[#393953] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Active Support has recently added qualified_const_* methods to Module

[#393954] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Ah, that won't work in 1.8.

[#393959] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 16:43, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393960] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393961] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 20:48, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393962] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393967] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/22

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 22:11, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393969] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/22

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#394154] uninitialized constant SOCKSSocket — Resident Moron <lists@...>

I am running ruby 1.9.3 on a linux box. I would like to use

10 messages 2012/03/29

[#394160] Why z = Complex(1,2) rather than z = Complex.new(1,2)? — Ori Ben-Dor <lists@...>

What's this syntax, z = Complex(1,2), as opposed to z =

14 messages 2012/03/29

[#394175] shoes no such file to load -- rubygems — Mr theperson <lists@...>

I have installed shoes to develop GUI applications but when I try and

13 messages 2012/03/29

[#394201] Can't open url with a subdomain with an underscore — Jeroen van Ingen <lists@...>

I try to open the following URL: http://auto_diversen.marktplaza.nl/

10 messages 2012/03/30

[#394222] Ruby openssl ECC help plz — no name <lists@...>

I am confused on how to properly export public ECC key. I can see it

13 messages 2012/03/31

Configuration Convention

From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2012-03-06 03:14:47 UTC
List: ruby-talk #393730
This is probably one of this topics that will get little attention. 
Nonetheless...

Have other developers started to feel like the *configuration* files for 
all the various project tools they use are starting to overshadow the rest 
of the project files? For instance, In many of my projects the meat of the 
project consists of a few source directories `lib/`, `test` (or `spec`) and 
sometimes `bin/`, usually four general documentation files 
`README`, `HISTORY`, `LICENSE` and `MANIFEST` and then of a few non 
vcs-tracked things like `pkg/`, `log/` and `web/` directories. All the rest 
consist of various configuration tool files. A quick look at various 
projects on github provides:

* .git
* .gitignore
* .document
* .rdoc_options
* .yardopts
* .yardoc
* .autotest
* .travis.yml
* .rspec
* .ruby
* .test
* .braids
* .vclog
* .rvmrc
* .rbenv-version
* .test-unit.yml
* .gemtest
* .gemspec -or- foo.gemspec
* Guardfile
* Rakefile
* Gemfile
* Gemfile.lock
* Procfile
* config.ru

And there are no doubt many more. Feel free to mention notable ones I've 
missed.

Now, obviously not all of these will apply to every project. But I can 
imagine that given enough time and a rather thorough developer, a 
project could acquire configurations for a couple dozen tools. Think code 
coverage, code analysis, IDE/RAD configuration, etc. I suspect there is a 
saturation point --at some point it just becomes too much to remember. Even 
so, it could amount to quite a few files, well exceeding the number of 
toplevel "meat" files of a project.

Another thing to notice is that there are almost universally two file 
formats: Ruby or YAML, and three naming schemes: dot files, Foofile files 
and lowercase with special extension files. 

While there are obviously some files that will always remain (e.g. .git), I 
wonder if it is possible for a convention to ever develop to mitigate all 
this. Most likely that would be in the form of a common directory to hold 
all these files, although conceivably, it could be in the form of a couple 
of shared files --one for Ruby code and one for YAML.


In This Thread

Prev Next