[Rubygems-developers] Specifying equivalent modules?
Charles Oliver Nutter
charles.nutter at sun.com
Wed Apr 18 01:03:39 EDT 2007
Thomas Palmer wrote:
> But as Tim Hunter pointed out for RMagick, there's some value in people
> knowing that they don't have the real thing if feature parity isn't
> there (or big bugs are). So I'll follow his recommendation for now (even
> if there's no official trademark on RMagick - which you could argue
> infringes on ImageMagick anyway) with respect to my clone.
Well, I suppose the problem with this logic is that no interpreter in
the world can run both RMagick and RMagickJr at the same time. You can
either run one or the other, but not both. So saying that C or JRuby
users might want to ensure they have the "real thing" doesn't really
apply...the "real thing" for JRuby users won't work at all, and the
Java-based version won't work for C Ruby users.
Keep in mind this largely just applies to cases where we have a Java
port of a C-extension-based gem...those cases present zero conflict
between platforms, so the only "real thing" is the one that will
More information about the Rubygems-developers