[Rubygems-developers] Suggestion: RAA-like meta-data

Chad Fowler chad at chadfowler.com
Sun Mar 21 09:07:52 EST 2004

On Mar 20, 2004, at 5:31 PM, Jamis Buck wrote:

> Chad Fowler wrote:
>> Putting that aside, if we were to do something like this, I would 
>> vote against hierarchical categories in favor of keywords.  I feel 
>> like trying to force category standards on developers would be too 
>> limiting.  Keywords (with suggested close matches) could help avoid 
>> "losing" packages down unintuitive branches of the hierarchy.
> I'm in favor of the keywords approach.  Categories always feel clunky, 
> since it's not always black-and-white as to where a package belongs. 
> However, allowing developers to choose their own keywords could be 
> detrimental, too.  That could be allowed, but there should be a set of 
> "standard" keywords, too, so that users have some idea of what to look 
> for.

I'm thinking we could provide an alternative to standardizing keywords 
by using case insensitivity mixed with the porter stemmer algorithm.  
This would at least eliminate the difference between "Networking", 
"networks", and "network".   I would personally like to avoid any kind 
of standardized keywords and/or categories for gem developers.

> The keywords approach is nice, too, since it would allow you to 
> differentiate (for example) between C-modules and pure-Ruby frameworks 
> (assuming the correct keywords were used).

We'll end up having other means by which to tell if a gem is a c module 
or pure ruby (consider the gem platform to be foreshadowing of this).  
I believe Rich is planning to work on source-gem compilation and binary 
gem installation soon.


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list