[Rubygems-developers] What plans now?

Curt Hibbs curt at curthibbs.us
Sun May 16 11:11:13 EDT 2004

Chad Fowler wrote:
> I'm all for making the API more convenient and powerful, but I don't
> think I'm very close to being sold on doing it via Gem inheritance.  In
> this context, I'd say that a gem is a gem.  You can store it locally or
> remotely and you can install and uninstall it, but it's still a gem.
> These really *are* processes, right?
> I could see how this could be an argument for getting a little more
> uniform about how we represent a "repository".  Maybe that's the noun
> you're looking for?  Right now we call that 'cache', which I know you
> hate. :)  Should we look at doing local and remote ones in an OO way?
> I'm not sure.

I haven't looked at this in a few weeks, to maybe it has changed, but the
main file that implements the command line interface mixes API with command
interface` I remember wanting to separate these so that the command line
process requires/uses the same API file my GUI browser would use,


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list