--Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:33:07PM +0900, Yusuke ENDOH wrote: > Hi, >=20 > 2010/9/9 Aaron Patterson <aaron / tenderlovemaking.com>: > >> pros: > >> - newbie tends to search library from stdlib first, but REXML > >> should not be used. By deprecating REXML (but not unbundled) > >> and providing Nokogiri, we can indicate to newbie the right > >> road. > >> > >> -> rebuttal: even if it is really needed, it is enough to > >> deprecate REXML. > > > > I agree with this rebuttal. No XML parser is better than a poor one. > > OTOH, it seems that people like having an XML parser ship with Ruby. > > Why not ship a good one? >=20 > I agree that people want Nokogiri. But if we import a library to ruby > package whenever people want it, ruby package will become too huge. Can you elaborate on the criteria required for importing a library to stdlib? I do not understand the requirements. > Thus it is a weak reason, unfortunately. > We need more convincing motivation. For example, if rubygems depend > on Nokogiri, it would be very convincing :-) It's difficult for me to fulfill requirements that are unknown. :-( If rubygems dependency is all that is needed, I'm happy to make a few changes to rubygems. ;-) > >> - Nokogiri may not preserve separate releases > > > > I'm not sure about this. Other stdlib package have had separate > > releases (rake, etc). Though, I hope that stdlib is turned to gems so > > this is easier (I'll respond to the gems thread). >=20 > As I said in [ruby-core:32054] and [ruby-core:32066], rake, etc. are > NEVER going well. I don't like to add new source of trouble. >=20 > Indeed, this problem may be solved by converting stdlibs to gems. > But it has some objections and is still under discussion. We should > not rely on the assumption at this time. We should continue this conversation in the "stdlib as gem" thread. But I do not agree with this as a negative point when it is apparent to me that the problem with stdlib maintenance is not for lack of willingness, but for lack of process. I might be wrong, but I can't accept this negative point without discussing the stdlib / gem problem further. IMO, the stdlib problem is a cyclic problem. Are stdlib packages so bug-free that users are willing to wait the 1+ year release cycle of Ruby? The people who are not willing to wait will give up on stdlib, thus making stdlib rot. Without users, we do not improve. > > I think the best options to improve the situation are: > > > > 1. Remove REXML so that users must search for an XML library > > > > 2. Package nokogiri so that users have a better alternative > > > > 3. Remove REXML *and* package nokogiri > > > > I understand we cannot remove REXML for 1.9.x, but maybe we should > > consider packaging nokogiri so people have an alternative? I would like > > to see #2 for Ruby 1.9.3+, then #3 for Ruby 2.0. >=20 > The point of issue is, why is this not enough? >=20 > 0. Deprecate REXML so that users must search for an XML library I think removing REXML would improve our world. But I also think that XML parsing is very important to Ruby users. Forcing Ruby users to search for an XML library because we couldn't bundle a decent one makes me sad. I think that any one of the solutions I listed would improve things. I just don't like the first one. --=20 Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ --Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMiF64AAoJEJUxcLy0/6/GA2AIAIXYaF5wboG3bkqoGUy+YPLL hD88mp3MlxihPK3Z2+Ph+Q6XLJHN5kjY8TT8OQlhAPu12/KIjd202OT9d3/NF2+q A6SKheM7x3JgYgREBuBZ26/S7h6kIV3+b+fNw9BWpcrNLrPT4NlN+RqS4SG2jnZI uMcmUnoGek+wUgmptDOArSbexgAhmk9cGyMG9Ni/AaXb/8O1tAgLpd8GFMKkpuvD c2MVIknr78dBKkoiDEk/YEySvjWhiSVS1CPY3m6J9Spph3ovxmW0r/DlNZsXjGAK elOUYW2D8C32OaqnLibW8nj53iJr5QHAQalPChKC6rbuzkJx/MWvwFI9yD2OQKU= =x0oB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Fba/0zbH8Xs+Fj9o--