Forum: JRuby "J" prefix on all scripts is finally possible...still want it?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Ede2aa10c6462f1d825143879be59e38?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Oliver Nutter (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 22:38
(Received via mailing list)
It looks like in a recent RubyGems it became possible to have it install
all scripts with "j" prefixes. "jrake", "jrails", etc. It appears to be
broken in 1.3.1 when defaults are specified, but Eric Hodel has been
informed about that and it may get fixed.

The justification is similar to that for other impls...macruby installs
macrake, ruby1.9 installs rake1.9, and so on. In that light, I think I
support the "j" prefix more now than I used to. But I don't think we can
break existing behavior.

So I guess there's a decision here. We could basically flip a bit with
the next upgrade (RubyGems 1.3.2 in JRuby 1.1.6?) to start installing
everything with "j" prefix. Or we could force it to remain the way it
is. Or we could provide a way that users can specify which behavior they
want (suggestions welcome).

What do you all say?

- Charlie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
C6b63e9914149409d4b007918649ae65?d=identicon&s=25 Khaled Al Habache (khelll)
on 2008-11-11 22:48
(Received via mailing list)
What r the benefits of having this 'j' ?
___________________________
Eng Khaled al Habache



On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <
F57929e394f00635fc8616e13aa69942?d=identicon&s=25 Mario Aquino (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 22:49
(Received via mailing list)
+1

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <
A90e6fbe88bee95389ad96bd1d891356?d=identicon&s=25 john casu (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 22:49
(Received via mailing list)
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> So I guess there's a decision here. We could basically flip a bit with
> the next upgrade (RubyGems 1.3.2 in JRuby 1.1.6?) to start installing
> everything with "j" prefix. Or we could force it to remain the way it
> is. Or we could provide a way that users can specify which behavior they
> want (suggestions welcome).
>

Please.. have the j prefix.. make sure there are no conflicts with
regular Ruby (i.e jem vs gem).

Can't tell you how useful it would be to have standard ruby & jruby
installations that could co-exist without the need to mess with
environment variables.

>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Ede2aa10c6462f1d825143879be59e38?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Oliver Nutter (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 22:54
(Received via mailing list)
The standard reason is if you have both normal Ruby and JRuby on your
system and want to be sure you're running the JRuby version of a given
command.

Khaled al Habache wrote:
>     install all scripts with "j" prefixes. "jrake", "jrails", etc. It
>     installing everything with "j" prefix. Or we could force it to
>       http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Ede2aa10c6462f1d825143879be59e38?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Oliver Nutter (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 23:22
(Received via mailing list)
john casu wrote:
> Please.. have the j prefix.. make sure there are no conflicts with
> regular Ruby (i.e jem vs gem).
>
> Can't tell you how useful it would be to have standard ruby & jruby
> installations that could co-exist without the need to mess with
> environment variables.

I'm sure it would be useful, but I also worry about those scripts and
users who don't expect the "j" prefix. There's certain to be a lot of
code out there that shells out to "ruby" or "rake" without reformatting.

I'm on the fence whether we can make "j" the default, but I don't see
why we couldn't provide it as a configurable bit after
unpacking/installing JRuby.

- Charlie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
13313ac2ec7ba7c43b1b952db034ff3b?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas E Enebo (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 23:24
(Received via mailing list)
I wouldn't mind the j prefix, but I do wonder how people who write
scripts which call these commands via things like backquote will cope?
 Even though gem provides a method for calling these commands, I
wonder how many people will know it exists?  Will we be hunting down
and reporting/education forevermore?

OTOH, it is very common for people who start with JRuby to get stuck
on -S at first.  This would eliminate that support issue.

I am of two minds...

-Tom

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
> So I guess there's a decision here. We could basically flip a bit with the
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>



--
Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo
Email: enebo@acm.org , tom.enebo@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
18bacf315805a25fe9dd18037c9306c7?d=identicon&s=25 David Kellum (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 23:40
(Received via mailing list)
-1 on making it the default behavior, as I think that will lead to
confusion and seems a bit at odds with gem author intent.
0 (neutral) to the idea of making this behavior available as a
non-default option.

In my own work I think there is only a small subset of gem bin scripts
(like jrake) where I actually want the jruby and ruby versions to
coexist. In these cases I think it perfectly reasonable to manually
create 'j' symlinks to handle these myself.  In the odd one-off case, as
mentioned, we can still do "jruby -S <script>".

I've blogged about my own j?ruby coexistence strategy here:

http://gravitext.com/blog/2008/10/27/1225174260000.html

And some of this should be of interest with or without the use of the
hashdot launcher.

--David
A90e6fbe88bee95389ad96bd1d891356?d=identicon&s=25 john casu (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 23:45
(Received via mailing list)
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> code out there that shells out to "ruby" or "rake" without reformatting.
>
> I'm on the fence whether we can make "j" the default, but I don't see
> why we couldn't provide it as a configurable bit after
> unpacking/installing JRuby.
>


I'd be inclined to make the j prefix the default, but include a
compatibility script that did the appropriate mapping (eg gem->jem,
ruby->jruby, etc...) for those people who need it.

As long as the jruby versions of the tools and scripts are backwards
compatible at the command option level with the ruby versions, there
really shouldn't be too much of a problem.  And to be honest, those
kinds of incompatibilities concern me more than command naming.

I've been bitten in the ass enough times by jruby's gem, that I would
have raised this as a feature request, had you not addressed it ahead of
me.


> - Charlie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Db58cf1ed68191031b3806b3416e75c9?d=identicon&s=25 Logan Barnett (Guest)
on 2008-11-11 23:57
(Received via mailing list)
I do this by hand for rake and gems. It would be pretty sweet to know
when I run some of my common gem commands such as rawr or monkeybars,
that I knew I was always running the version I meant to run.

In short, I'm in favor of jcommands/scripts.

jLogan Barnett
logan@happycamperstudios.com
602 714 1148

On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> So I guess there's a decision here. We could basically flip a bit
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.