Prev: Default Graph URI in Sparql Client
Next: Failed to build the native extension
From: Intransition on 5 May 2010 23:17
What do others think of a creating a new ri tool which uses a SQLite
database for storage instead of flat files? I figure doing that would
make it easy to create dynamic documentation websites (using ones
favorite web framework), not to mention that the ri command line tool
should be pretty fast.


From: Brian Candler on 6 May 2010 03:45
Have you looked at fastri?

Don't know how it works internally, but it's a lot faster than the 1.8
ri.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: Gavin Sinclair on 7 May 2010 05:22
On May 6, 1:17 pm, Intransition <transf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What do others think of a creating a new ri tool which uses a SQLite
> database for storage instead of flat files? I figure doing that would
> make it easy to create dynamic documentation websites (using ones
> favorite web framework), not to mention that the ri command line tool
> should be pretty fast.

I've thought of it many times, but would never personally undertake
such a project.

In addition to hoped-for speed, the motivating factor for me would be
deeper documentation knowledge.

For instance, if you do 'ri String' now, you are told about all String
methods from any library you have installed, as if they were all
available all the time. You're not told what you have to "require" to
get access to the various methods.

ri's knowledge is static and shallow; the potential exists for it to
be dynamic and deep. Or something.

I haven't really looked at or used ri for some time now, so apologies
if my comments are outdated.

Gavin
From: Eric Hodel on 12 May 2010 16:53
On May 10, 2010, at 17:48, botp wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Eric Hodel <drbrain(a)segment7.net> wrote:
>> RDoc uses Marshal data files now and fastri uses the old yaml files.
>> Maybe someday somebody will actually bother contributing improvements to RDoc instead of letting them fall by the wayside every other year. (hint, hint)
>
> i just updated rdoc to latest, and rebuilt all docs. yes, rdoc is a
> lot better (faster & more comprehensive) now.

Thanks!

If you have any suggestions for further improvements I'd love to hear them. The easiest place is on the bug tracker at rubyforge.

> i've always thought (and i was terribly wrong) that rdoc is builtin in
> ruby19 and that a simple gem update would rebuilt it... so there.. a
> terrible nuby error on my part...

The way RubyGems works you can use it to replace any part of the standard library provided you call gem before require. The other big library that uses this is soap4r like:

gem 'soap4r'
require 'soap4r'
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Default Graph URI in Sparql Client
Next: Failed to build the native extension