[Rubygems-developers] require_gem/autorequire vs require.
Jim Freeze
rubygems at freeze.org
Thu Jun 2 10:31:23 EDT 2005
* Jim Weirich <jim at weirichhouse.org> [2005-06-02 13:25:38 -0000]:
>
> Jim Freeze said:
> >> 05) activate_gem
> >> 06) gem_activate # reminds me of "wonder twin powers...activate!"
> >> 13) Gem.activate
> >> 16) activate
> >
> > Which reminds me, will there be a deactivate?
>
> None currently planned. Do you have a reasonable use case for one?
Well, I don't think it would make sense to do an activate, require the gem,
and then change the active gem since there is not a clean way to
un-require a gem.
However, consider the following scenario:
activate some_gemlib, "= 1.2.3" # this activates some_subgemlib, "= 1.0.0"
# but the libraries are not loaded
deactivate some_subgemlib
activate some_subgemlib, "= 2.0.0"
# go about business as usual with some_gemlib now using v 2.0.0 of
# some_subgemlib
However, this may be equivalent to:
activate some_gemlib, "= 1.2.3" # this activates some_subgemlib, "= 1.0.0"
# no deactivate statement. Is overridden with second activate
activate some_subgemlib, "= 2.0.0"
# go about business as usual using some_subgemlib v 2.0.0.
Thoughts?
--
Jim Freeze
Theory and practice are the same, in theory. -- Ryan Davis
More information about the Rubygems-developers
mailing list