From Fox356 at gmx.de  Wed Mar  3 05:10:59 2010
From: Fox356 at gmx.de (Fox356 at gmx.de)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:10:59 +0100
Subject: [Backgroundrb-devel] Could not find gem -packet- during Application
	start
Message-ID: <20100303101059.253800@gmx.net>

Hey Guys,

I have a problem starting my application with the newest backgroundrb. 

Starting the backgroundrb from console using script/backgroundrb is no problem. Even triggering a job from db is working.

But if I want to start my Application this error will occurs:
/Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require': no such file to load -- packet (MissingSourceFile)


packet ist installed in Version 0.1.15. Already tried other versions like 0.1.14 or 0.1.7

If I remove the require from backgroundrb.rb the server starts up normally.
But thats not a well workaround.

Another Problem - maybe the both hang together. I could not trigger jobs through the backgroundrb.yml. Only through MiddleMan and Database.

Thanks for your reply.

Best regards,
Simon



-- 
GMX DSL: Internet, Telefon und Entertainment f?r nur 19,99 EUR/mtl.!
http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02

From christoforever at gmail.com  Wed Mar  3 09:05:05 2010
From: christoforever at gmail.com (Christopher Dancy)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:05:05 -0500
Subject: [Backgroundrb-devel] Could not find gem -packet- during
	Application start
In-Reply-To: <20100303101059.253800@gmx.net>
References: <20100303101059.253800@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <37dffd861003030605s5f3bad8ek9d5923320f40fcd8@mail.gmail.com>

Use delayed_job. Backgroundrb is buggy and not maintained as well. Also
delayed_job is much easier to use.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:10 AM, <Fox356 at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> I have a problem starting my application with the newest backgroundrb.
>
> Starting the backgroundrb from console using script/backgroundrb is no
> problem. Even triggering a job from db is working.
>
> But if I want to start my Application this error will occurs:
> /Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
> `gem_original_require': no such file to load -- packet (MissingSourceFile)
>
>
> packet ist installed in Version 0.1.15. Already tried other versions like
> 0.1.14 or 0.1.7
>
> If I remove the require from backgroundrb.rb the server starts up normally.
> But thats not a well workaround.
>
> Another Problem - maybe the both hang together. I could not trigger jobs
> through the backgroundrb.yml. Only through MiddleMan and Database.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>
>
>
> --
> GMX DSL: Internet, Telefon und Entertainment f?r nur 19,99 EUR/mtl.!
> http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02
> _______________________________________________
> Backgroundrb-devel mailing list
> Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
>



-- 
Ubuntu...It's what's for breakfast.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/backgroundrb-devel/attachments/20100303/ba04bfd8/attachment.html>

From nic.benders at gmail.com  Sun Mar  7 02:20:58 2010
From: nic.benders at gmail.com (Nic Benders)
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:20:58 -0800
Subject: [Backgroundrb-devel] BackgrounDRb and Rails 3 beta
Message-ID: <147A4EA8-8099-4C2B-864A-9B8C65CD9673@gmail.com>

Despite the general gloom surrounding BackgrounDRb (even on this list), I'm still fond of it.  I needed to get it running with the rest of my app in preparation for Rails 3.  The changes required are actually quite small, mostly just changing the directory that the generators live in.

Comparison of master to my Rails_3 branch - http://github.com/benders/backgroundrb/compare/master...rails_3

I have not tested every feature, but so far it is working well.  If the general approach looks right to people, then I will finish up testing of some of the other features and checking backwards compatibility, and some small documentation.  I would specifically like feed-back on the name-spacing of the generator tasks.

Which brings up the question of how far back should it work?  I've seen some items in the code clearly meant to run with older versions of Rails.  Should it target any 2.x?  Or is the current version already doing things that mean only 2.3 is supported?

Thanks,
-Nic


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/backgroundrb-devel/attachments/20100306/68643d5b/attachment.html>

From justin.wood at trifectagis.com  Sun Mar  7 14:23:48 2010
From: justin.wood at trifectagis.com (Justin Wood)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:23:48 +1300
Subject: [Backgroundrb-devel] BackgrounDRb and Rails 3 beta
In-Reply-To: <147A4EA8-8099-4C2B-864A-9B8C65CD9673@gmail.com>
References: <147A4EA8-8099-4C2B-864A-9B8C65CD9673@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <95a868281003071123g3890e250pc4284d4b3053bbf3@mail.gmail.com>

Nic

It's great to see you are working on this.   I also have a fondness for the
memory hungry bastard.   I think backgroundrb has a lot of good ideas that
could ultimately be fixed by some thread pooling.   Any repair work would
benefit from it being as clean as possible, if people got to Rails 3 they
have lot to worry about anyway.   They might as well worry about Backgroudrb
as well.   Even if you make some really harsh changes and it only worked
with Rails 3 then so be it.

I checked out the changes and they all look sensible to me (kinda in line
with some hacks we made on our own versions).   ...  while you are there :-)
if the mood takes you it would be really handy if  backroundrb could have
it's configurations split by environment via backroundrb.yml.

Regards
Justin



On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Nic Benders <nic.benders at gmail.com> wrote:

> Despite the general gloom surrounding BackgrounDRb (even on this list), I'm
> still fond of it.  I needed to get it running with the rest of my app in
> preparation for Rails 3.  The changes required are actually quite small,
> mostly just changing the directory that the generators live in.
>
> Comparison of master to my Rails_3 branch -
> http://github.com/benders/backgroundrb/compare/master...rails_3
>
> I have not tested every feature, but so far it is working well.  If the
> general approach looks right to people, then I will finish up testing of
> some of the other features and checking backwards compatibility, and some
> small documentation.  I would specifically like feed-back on the
> name-spacing of the generator tasks.
>
> Which brings up the question of how far back should it work?  I've seen
> some items in the code clearly meant to run with older versions of Rails.
>  Should it target any 2.x?  Or is the current version already doing things
> that mean only 2.3 is supported?
>
> Thanks,
> -Nic
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Backgroundrb-devel mailing list
> Backgroundrb-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/backgroundrb-devel
>



-- 
Justin Wood
Senior Software Architect


New Zealand Office,
57 Wellington Street,
Freemans Bay,
Auckland,
New Zealand


M  +64 27 225 0749  |  P   +64 9 370 0168  |  F   +64 9 361 6504
E   justin.wood at trifectagis.com  |  Free:    0800 trifecta
Skype:  nztrifecta

www.trifectagis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/backgroundrb-devel/attachments/20100308/6ce383f9/attachment-0001.html>