------art_121047_12717377.1183742292825
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 7/6/07, Sharon Phillips <phillipsds / yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've written some small Ruby apps for monitoring things at work but
> am not enjoying distributing them.
> Seems for each person I have to install Ruby, then the extra
> libraries I use (currently just ori8 and net-ssh). I'd like to write
> a gui front end, but shudder at the thought of then having to install
> qt / fox / whatever.
>
> Am I missing something here? Do I have to do this for each machine in
> order to just let someone else run a Ruby script?
>
> How can I lessen the pain?
> Is it possible to install the libraries on the LAN and each machine
> run them from there?
> I don't mind installing the Ruby interpreter and I even like Scite
> (with modified a ruby proffile :), it's the extra stuff I'm talking
> about.
> I've tried rubyscript2exe (we're talking Windows boxes), and it seems
> to work fine for some things but breaks the Oracle bindings.
>
> I've considered a web app, but I don't have access to a place to
> serve it.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
I know of one group that runs some internal ruby apps off of a single ruby
installation on a shared network drive, so that's certainly possible. If you
put your own apps there, that gives you one place to update them too.

Another approach I read about, but haven't seen tried, is to use JRuby and
package everything, JRuby, libs plus your app, into one big JAR file, and
distribute that along with maybe a batch script to execute it. That gets to
be a big jarfile, but disk space is cheap, and it guarantees that your app
will keep running on the same version of ruby and other libs that you tested
it with, even if workstations get upgraded when you aren't looking.

-- 
Wes Sheldahl

------art_121047_12717377.1183742292825--