Comments on: Rails Bundling — Revisited

By: Richie Vos

Richie Vos — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:57:35 +0000

Katz, I heard you talk about this at WindyCityRails last weekend and just want you to know this feature alone would make going through an upgrade to Rails 3 worthwhile.

The disaster that is config.gem needs to die. I thought about this a bit awhile ago and think the only way for this to work properly is to be in a separate file with the dependencies there, and am quite happy to see that’s what you found as well.

@chad (or anyone who comes across this) you can get it at http://github.com/wycats/bundler/tree (or since github is down right now http://google.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fwycats%2Fbundler%2Ftree )

By: Chad Woolley

Chad Woolley — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:08:37 +0000

Good stuff. Is this source anywhere public yet?

By: nicholas a. evans

nicholas a. evans — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:33:57 +0000

A couple of questions I have: will this handle gem dependencies *before* loading the app environment (and initializing plugins). And what about local rake files with gem dependencies?

From your post, it sounds like the answer to my first question is “yes”. But I just want to confirm, because that’s one of the biggest shortcomings of the current “config.gem” system.

In order to successfully *load* all of ‘lib/tasks/**/*.rake’, I need to be sure that certain of my gem dependencies exist. If they don’t, then “rake gems:install” crashes. One (ugly hack) solution would be to wrap any rake files that have external dependencies in a begin…rescue block. That’s what I currently do. Another (more elegant?) solution would be to handle gem dependencies prior to loading lib/tasks/**/*.rake. If a gem dependency (that has been flagged as necessary for loading rake) is missing, then simply don’t load lib/tasks/**/*.rake (and print out an warning message).

Both of these would require pulling the gem dependencies out of config/environment.rb and putting them into a separate config file.

At any rate, I’m glad to hear that you’re tackling this! It’s an important issue, and I suspect you’ll do a good job with it.

By: Francis Hwang

Francis Hwang — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:24:44 +0000

@be4ce: You may not intend to be rude, but you’re doing a good job of it anyway. Yehuda is telling you about code he’s writing and will be giving to you and everyone else for free. You don’t have to like his code or use his code or think he’s smart, but to come onto his blog and talk as if he owes you anything shows a shocking lack of understanding as to how open source works.

And if you really think he’s full of it, you ought to show him up by releasing something that solves the same problem, and does it better. Code speaks.

By: Botanicus

Botanicus — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:36:11 +0000

One of the biggest problem for me was unability to specify gems which should be installed just on development machine and gems for production. It was because of merb.thor parse config/dependencies.rb but do not run merb and I wasn’t able to use Merb.env to determine the actual environment. I’ve develop the solution for installation based on runtime dependencies even before the current solution was out, created lighthouse ticket and send patch, but anyone care … later I created another ticket to warn about the problems, someone at least noticed and confirmed the ticket, but it was the only thing what happen with this ticket for fucking long time

By: be4ce

be4ce — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:43:00 +0000

Let me ask a question – you really like to do it and maintain it in longterm, or is it just another hype about shit? I don’t intend to be rude, but you guys always start something, it’s very cool, there are blog posts, discussion and so and after some time anyone maintain it. For example Merb, Rack-router, Thor … or am I wrong? (I’d like to believe so).

By: AJ (fujin)

AJ (fujin) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:50:21 +0000

Sounds like a nice amount of polish ontop of the merb bundler – look forward to testing this out!