[Rubygems-developers] RubyGems API Docs

Mauricio Fernández batsman.geo at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 7 04:37:35 EST 2004

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:58:08AM -0500, Richard Kilmer wrote:
> The whole API is public in that it is open source.  All the classes can be
> manipulated by any person that wants (on their own machine, etc), and we

There is a distinction between API and mere source code, though.

> should publish it all so that someone who wants to fully understand/
> contribute to the API can do so. 

Anybody willing to fully understand/contribute to RubyGems would be able to
run rdoc on the most recent source code, taken directly from CVS.

I'm not sure I got the message across: the question was intended in the
sense of "are you sure you're satisfied with all of the API and want to
commit to keeping backwards compatibility for all the interfaces shown
in the RDoc documentation?".

The effect of publishing the RDoc documentation is that people will
think the whole API is considered stable and might use it in ways you
didn't anticipate. Once that happens, it becomes more difficult for you
to change/fix any interface...

> But you are correct that there is a subset
> of the API that library developers that package stuff as gems need to
Not only packagers, also ppl building things atop RubyGems, such as
alternative interfaces...

The subset one needs to package is better documented elsewhere.

> understand to be functional.  We will change the API over time as necessary,
> attempt to always be backward compatible where possible,  and provide clear
> direction on how to migrate in the event that compatibility is not achieved.

That's an admirable, albeit too generic declaration of intentions.
Trying to translate that into something more specific, are you sure
you're satisfied with Gem::RemoteInstaller and Gem::Installer, for
instance? And Gem::RemoteSourceFetcher, etc?

>On 12/3/04 9:36 AM, "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:57:28AM -0500, Jim Weirich wrote:
> >> So I took the liberty of generating them and putting them out at
> >> http://rubygems.rubyforge.org/rdoc (and added pointers on the RubyGems main
> >> page).
> > 
> > Is the API officially considered stable, i.o.w. are you going to commit
> > to it?
> > 
> > I thought that only a very small part of RubyGems was to be
> > exposed through a public API: Gem::Cache, Gem::Specification,
> > Gem::RemoteInstaller...

PS: top-posting :-#

Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list