From: Joel VanderWerf on
Jonathan Groll wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:22:10AM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
>> XY$ wrote:
>>> I wonder if it is possible to run Sinatra without useing RubyGems.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean. For my purposes, the answer is yes.
>>
>> I use gem for package management, but crown[1] to construct a
>> self-contained set of lib, ext, and bin dirs so that my program can
>> run without any reference to rubygems.
>
> Impressive! What do you see as the benefits of crown over nkryptic's
> sandbox:
>
> http://github.com/nkryptic/sandbox
>
> I'm trying to make up my mind which approach should be used in different
> situations.

Wasn't aware of that... IIUC, the differences are:

- programs in a "sandbox" still use the rubygems lib at runtime (hence a
small cost in startup time etc.)

- sandbox lets you use the gem command to work with the gems in the
sandbox (with crown, the gems are copied and turned into ordinary ruby
libs that are no longer gems)

I can see a need for each of these tools. Sandbox would be good for
testing a program against different versions or combinations of gems,
perhaps. Crown is good for preparing an "all-in-one" dir that can be
packaged with no deps other than ruby, or can be checked into version
control. They are both good for freezing the gem state at one point in
its history.

Probably, they should both be made into gem plugins...

From: Jonathan Groll on
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:22:10AM +0900, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
> XY$ wrote:
>> I wonder if it is possible to run Sinatra without useing RubyGems.
>
> Depends on what you mean. For my purposes, the answer is yes.
>
> I use gem for package management, but crown[1] to construct a
> self-contained set of lib, ext, and bin dirs so that my program can run
> without any reference to rubygems.

Impressive! What do you see as the benefits of crown over nkryptic's
sandbox:

http://github.com/nkryptic/sandbox

I'm trying to make up my mind which approach should be used in different situations.

Cheers,
Jonathan