[Nitro] Rolls sounds interesting
fabian at oggu.de
Fri Aug 4 10:17:50 EDT 2006
Am 04.08.2006 um 14:53 schrieb TRANS:
> On 8/4/06, Fabian Buch <fabian at oggu.de> wrote:
>> Would the developer usually put a fruitapp.rb at the highest level to
>> require the current version and each time installing a new version
>> would override this fruitapp.rb? What if someone installs an older
>> version of a lib after he installed the latest version?
> Yes, that can be a problem if the older version is functionally
> different from the latest version. Top level files should really
> contian nothing more then requires to a subdir. In fact, Rolls makes
That's what I had in mind "just a require", but if it's versiond (no
rolls installed), it'd contain "require 'fruitapp/1.0/x.rb'" and when
installing the next version the fruitapp.rb would be replaced by a
file containing "require 'fruitapp/1.1/x.rb'", which is usually fine,
but if the user afterwards installs version 0.6 it'll again be
replaced by a file containing "require 'fruitapp/0.6/x.rb'". This
might not happen often, but the user will probably look for hours why
a functionality he expects from fruitapp version 1.1 isn't working,
since he thinks he installed the latest version (which is installed
I don't know how, but it might be a good idea to assist the developer
to have a check at install-time (via setup.rb) that replaces
fruitapp.rb only if the version that's to be installed is newer than
all already installed versions. I don't know if this is possible
without rolls/sow on the users machine (of course the developer has
it installed ;)).
> P.S. I plain to promote Rolls once Sow is a little further along.
Looking forward to it. It sounds very good already and if the above
can't be handled we could stick to standard dir structures usually
and use sow to roll it :).
Nitro Q&A: http://oxyliquit.de/
More information about the Nitro-general