The scenario is correct

Post #233,820 by Arkadiy 11/12/05 8:52:24 PM Reply	The scenario is correct Why it happens, I have no idea. Worse, right-thinking folks at Rails mailing list can't reproduce the behavior. I, on the other hand, can't get rid of it. The only solution for me is to require_gem ActiveRecord before requiring rails. I noticed that RubyGems does loading in sorta two stages - first it adds the directory to load path, and then eventually it does the actual "require". I am not sure I understand how it works and why it's done that way. If I did, I'd be better equiped to judge whether RubyGems is doing something wrong... In general, wouldn't it be fair to say that if you refer to gem, you should specify a dependency on the gem? I think RubyGems is blameles in this. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #233,860 by JimWeirich 11/13/05 1:52:30 AM Reply	Re: The scenario is correct In general, wouldn't it be fair to say that if you refer to gem, you should specify a dependency on the gem? I think RubyGems is blameles in this. Depends on what kind of dependency you are refering to. The dependencies in the gem specifications are only used to determine what is needed at download time -- they have no effect on the system runtime. The 'require_gem' dependencies are only needed if you are using a particular version of a gem, otherwise you can leave them off entirely and RubyGems will pick out the latest version you have installed. Let's see if we can nail this problem. What version of RubyGems are you using (the latest released version is 0.8.11)? Also what versions of ActiveRecord do you have installed? When you do a require_gem, are you getting the latest version or are you specifying a particular version? If you can reproduce the problem in a reasonable small set of code, I would be willing to take a look at it. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #233,872 by Arkadiy 11/13/05 10:57:20 AM Reply	My environment I seem to load 0.8.1, and then 0.8.11 upgrade I simply used gems to grab rails and some extras, and here is what I have now: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actionmailer (1.1.3) Service layer for easy email delivery and testing. actionpack (1.11.0) Web-flow and rendering framework putting the VC in MVC. actionwebservice (0.9.3) Web service support for Action Pack. activerecord (1.13.0) Implements the ActiveRecord pattern for ORM. activesupport (1.2.3) Support and utility classes used by the Rails framework. rails (0.14.3) Web-application framework with template engine, control-flow layer, and ORM. rake (0.6.2) Ruby based make-like utility. rubygems-update (0.8.11) RubyGems Update GEM sources (0.0.1) This package provides download sources for remote gem installation <<<<<<<<<<<<<< As to the role of dependencies in loading process, don't you try to activate dependencies before activating the main gem? I will try to get a small example, but it would require me to manufacture gems, something I really have no experience with. I'll try it during the week. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #234,259 by JimWeirich 11/15/05 12:37:29 PM Reply	Re: My environment and here is what I have now: [... list of gem packages elided ...] Good, it looks like you only have one version of each package installed. (Gems should handle multiple versions, but since you are having problems it is good to eliminate variables). I assume that none of these are installed directly (as non-gem packages), correct? As to the role of dependencies in loading process, don't you try to activate dependencies before activating the main gem? Yes, but gems should be handling that. As soon as you require a file that is not found in the search path, RubyGems will find a gem that can satisfy that required file and activate it automatically. There is no need for the user to do anything special unless (a) they desire a particular version of a package and wish to manually activate it, or (b) there are some conflicts where RubyGems activates the wrong gem because of a name clash. I will try to get a small example, but it would require me to manufacture gems, something I really have no experience with. I'll try it during the week. If you get another together, I would love to see it. I just had a thought. You might want to try out the latest beta version of RubyGems to see if that addresses the issue. There are some subtle autorequire bugs that were stamped out in the beta version and perhaps there is one that is affecting you. You can get the latest beta version of RubyGems with: gem update --system --source [link\|http://onestepback.org/betagems\|http://onestepback.org/betagems] -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #234,894 by Arkadiy 11/18/05 2:07:33 PM Reply	OK, I see more clearly now I have sample code that repropduces the problem. The code is essentially a top-level gem that depends on gems 1, 2 and 3. 2 and 3 depend on 1 3 uses "load("second.rb")" to load 2 in the middle of its .rb file (that's a huge simplification, but the complex code in rails boils down to "load". They do it to be able to refresh code after it gets changed during development, I think). Now, if I have a test file that contains require 'rubygems' require 'top' require 'third' require 'second' I get "second" loaded twice. If you need my source, let me know where to post a tarball. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #235,049 by jake123 11/19/05 2:29:34 AM 11/19/05 2:31:10 AM Reply	The rain has gone --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by jake123 Nov. 19, 2005, 02:31:10 AM EST Expand All History
Post #235,050 by jake123 11/19/05 2:30:04 AM Reply	I can see all obstacles in my way --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #235,051 by jake123 11/19/05 2:31:30 AM Reply	Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #235,052 by jake123 11/19/05 2:32:26 AM Reply	It's gonna be a bright (bright) bright (bright) sunshiny day --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #235,064 by Another Scott 11/19/05 8:12:12 AM Reply	A source of annoying catchphrases now.
Post #235,065 by jake123 11/19/05 8:14:02 AM Reply	Sorry, saw Arkadiy's subject line and it just popped into my head, fully formed. After that it was just inevitable that I was going to do that... gotta do something about that I guess. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #235,067 by Another Scott 11/19/05 8:17:43 AM Reply	(Twas just the LRPDism. :-)
Post #235,072 by broomberg 11/19/05 8:31:48 AM Reply	Except the song has no "ok" or "more" Of course, I thought of them as well.
Post #235,073 by Another Scott 11/19/05 8:41:01 AM Reply	Ditto. It's got staying power.
Post #235,074 by jake123 11/19/05 8:55:10 AM Reply	But not in that way, pervs. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #235,082 by Arkadiy 11/19/05 10:14:40 AM Reply	Grrrrrrr. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #235,197 by JimWeirich 11/19/05 11:24:23 PM Reply	Re: OK, I see more clearly now 3 uses "load("second.rb")" to load 2 in the middle of its .rb file (that's a huge simplification, but the complex code in rails boils down to "load". They do it to be able to refresh code after it gets changed during development, I think). Ahhh ... require won't load the same file twice, but load doesn't know anything about require's list of file names. So files loaded by 'load' are not reported to 'require' ... or something like that. If Rails is working hard to load the file itself, is it possible for you to omit your require statement? There are a lot of declarations in rails that just handle the file loading automatically for you ... is there something you can take advantage of? -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #235,334 by Arkadiy 11/21/05 12:46:00 PM Reply	It should be possible But in the real code the require statementr is not there, either. The only thing that's "require"d is the top-level module. I need to improve my model to figure out how that happens. Will try to do it later. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]

Welcome to IWETHEY!