Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2009, at 19:00, James Britt wrote:
>> Eric Hodel wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 15:31, James Britt wrote:
>>>> I'm running ruby 1.8.6 (2009-03-10 patchlevel 362) [i686-linux] and 
>>>> trying to rdoc the current 1.9 source.
>>> Is there a reason you aren't using the rdoc that ships with 1.9 
>>> (2.2.2) or the latest RDoc (2.4.1)?
>>
>> I'm running Ruby 1.8.6 on ruby-doc.org, but want to serve up the rdoc 
>> for the 1.9 source.  I also have templates that are not designed for 
>> RDoc (2.4.1) (they do not use erb).
>>
>> At some point I'll convert them, but I'd rather that be a little later 
>> than sooner.
> 
> I don't think you'll find a better time.

That's often the case. ;)

> 
> The RDoc 1 code is rather difficult to fix, it's a bit slower and quite 
> the memory hog compared to 2.4.
> 
> On my machine RDoc 2.3 took over 2G to generate HTML for 1.9 while RDoc 
> 2.4 takes under 200M.  For the RDoc source itself, RDoc 2.4 is about 10% 
> faster than 2.3.
> 
> If you only want to move up to 2.3, it's easy to switch the templates 
> over to ERb, the instructions are in ri RDoc::TemplatePage.
> 

I'll look at that.  In the long run it's what needs to happen anyways.


> 2.4 dispenses with the nested hash structure that the HTML generator 
> used (which caused the high memory consumption) so switching is a more 
> involved process.  I'm willing to give you a hand with that, though.

Thanks!


-- 
James Britt

www.jamesbritt.com           - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org             - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com            - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff