[rspec-devel] require 'rubygems'
peter.fitzgibbons at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 07:24:27 EDT 2009
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:12 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2009/3/26 Peter Fitzgibbons <peter.fitzgibbons at gmail.com>:
> >> Seems to me that any libraries don't need this. By the time the
> >> are loading, rubygems should already be loaded (otherwise the libraries
> >> wouldn't have been found).
> >> I only put this in the top level application code. One place.
> >> At least this is true for rake. Is rspec different?
> > I'm with you. Also this seems to also be taken care of through RUBYOPT,
> Setting RUBYOPT means that all of your programs always load the
> rubygems machinery even if you're not using rubygems. While I realize
> that most of us use gems in nearly all (if not 100%) of our projects,
> I think there is a case for saying "don't make me load rubygems unless
> I need it" that is equally as strong as "don't force me to use
> rubygems as my gem-loading strategy."
Yes, I agree. My arrow missed the target. I was trying to say, those who
need rubygems, as Ryan points out, should be using RUBYOPT or calling
require 'rubygems' somewhere above "any" library. I'm with Ryan that as a
maintainer, you should be "above" the use of rubygems (as a rails user, I
also understand the pain that entails).
Email: peter.fitzgibbons at gmail.com
> > Peter Fitzgibbons
> > Email: peter.fitzgibbons at gmail.com
> >> --
> >> -- Jim Weirich
> >> -- jim.weirich at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-devel