This an historic question. Why is NOT more part of the standard
library a usefull library like "Mail"; since Ruby 1.9?
The Net::SMTP, Net::POP3, and Net::IMAP classes from the net library
don't do what you need?
http://www.rubydoc.info/stdlib/net/1.9.3
-Jeremy
···
On 12/08/2014 02:21 PM, låzaro wrote:
This an historic question. Why is NOT more part of the standard
library a usefull library like "Mail"; since Ruby 1.9?
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 2
In reply to: Jeremy Bopp
> This an historic question. Why is NOT more part of the standard
> library a usefull library like "Mail"; since Ruby 1.9?
The Net::SMTP, Net::POP3, and Net::IMAP classes from the net library
don't do what you need?-Jeremy
nop... does you seed how powerful Mike's Mail lib (actually a gem)?
manage a Email (as RFC) it transform an Email in a ruby's Object.
@mail=Mail.new
@mail.from=@mail.to='fulano@dominio.cu'
@mail.subject='hello there'
@mail.deliver
Or parsing emails with just give it as argument to new
# email incoming by stdin from some program
@mail=Mail.new STDIN.read
Is a shame that powerful tool do not coming bundled to Ruby...
···
Date: Mon, Dec 08, 2014
On 12/08/2014 02:21 PM, låzaro wrote:
···
ᐧ
Is a shame that powerful tool do not coming bundled to Ruby…
+1, I agree it would be really helpful if libraries such as Mike’s mail lib were part of the standard ruby libraries.
–
Harisankar P S
https://twitter.com/coderhs | http://csnipp.com/coderhs
While it's convenient to have one's favorite libraries available by
default, maybe it makes more sense to make it even easier to install
gems. Installing a gem has the advantage of allowing one to potentially
use a more current version of a library than would be available if said
library was included with stdlib. Shipping fewer libraries with Ruby by
default also simplifies the Ruby release process.
Personally, running gem install or bundle install is plenty easy for me
when I need a library, but I know these things can be problematic for
people behind restrictive firewalls or when rubygems.org is down. Are
there other reasons that installing a gem is not possible or simply too
much work?
-Jeremy
···
On 12/08/2014 03:03 PM, Harisankar P S wrote:
+1, I agree it would be really helpful if libraries such as Mike's
mail lib were part of the standard ruby libraries.
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 4
In reply to: Harisankar P S
ᐧ
>
> Is a shame that powerful tool do not coming bundled to Ruby...
>
>
+1, I agree it would be really helpful if libraries such as Mike's mail
lib were part of the standard ruby libraries.
a perfects Net::SMTP and Net::POP libraries just need a perfect Mail
RFC library
Mime's lib is a dependency of Mike's Mail but anyway, mime is also
good for work with webservers
···
Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 6
In reply to: Jeremy Bopp
> +1, I agree it would be really helpful if libraries such as Mike's
> mail lib were part of the standard ruby libraries.
While it's convenient to have one's favorite libraries available by
default, maybe it makes more sense to make it even easier to install
gems. Installing a gem has the advantage of allowing one to potentially
use a more current version of a library than would be available if said
library was included with stdlib. Shipping fewer libraries with Ruby by
default also simplifies the Ruby release process.Personally, running gem install or bundle install is plenty easy for me
when I need a library, but I know these things can be problematic for
people behind restrictive firewalls or when rubygems.org is down. Are
there other reasons that installing a gem is not possible or simply too
much work?-Jeremy
Ok, that is a good point, my opinion part from a place where almost
nobody can run "gem install fulanito"
But how much thin you claim shall be ruby? Iconv, Mail, ncurses. Who
is the next?
Many beginner programmer choose hi level lang just by the standar library
A usable and versatile language is transforming in a powerful flowerpot!
···
Date: Mon, Dec 08, 2014
On 12/08/2014 03:03 PM, Harisankar P S wrote:
Dear Lazaro,
I think this is the way Ruby will go from now on.
Make Ruby standard library as small and as modular as possible.
And I think it's great! 
You can choose just what you want!
Look at this ticket for curses.
Lazaro, are you having any trouble installing gems?
Could we help you?
Best regards,
Abinoam Jr.
···
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 6
Date: Mon, Dec 08, 2014
In reply to: Jeremy BoppOn 12/08/2014 03:03 PM, Harisankar P S wrote:
> +1, I agree it would be really helpful if libraries such as Mike's
> mail lib were part of the standard ruby libraries.
While it's convenient to have one's favorite libraries available by
default, maybe it makes more sense to make it even easier to install
gems. Installing a gem has the advantage of allowing one to potentially
use a more current version of a library than would be available if said
library was included with stdlib. Shipping fewer libraries with Ruby by
default also simplifies the Ruby release process.Personally, running gem install or bundle install is plenty easy for me
when I need a library, but I know these things can be problematic for
people behind restrictive firewalls or when rubygems.org is down. Are
there other reasons that installing a gem is not possible or simply too
much work?-Jeremy
Ok, that is a good point, my opinion part from a place where almost
nobody can run "gem install fulanito"But how much thin you claim shall be ruby? Iconv, Mail, ncurses. Who
is the next?Many beginner programmer choose hi level lang just by the standar library
A usable and versatile language is transforming in a powerful flowerpot!
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 8
In reply to: Abinoam Jr.
Dear Lazaro,
I think this is the way Ruby will go from now on.
Make Ruby standard library as small and as modular as possible.And I think it's great!
You can choose just what you want!
Look at this ticket for curses.
Bug #8584: Remove curses - Ruby master - Ruby Issue Tracking System
Lazaro, are you having any trouble installing gems?
Could we help you?Best regards,
Abinoam Jr.
Many newb programmers (ruby users) value the lang by its standard
library. In countries like this, where internet is lucrative, use gem
is not a option, but, thats is not a problem. Many times, I told to
people (super developed countries people); for example "with ruby,
just like it, you can do that". And people ask "does I need to install
some gem" and the perfect answer is "no, just with ruby". And 4
persons become rubyst and beginner programmer.
I wonder why mail's lib come out, and XML-rpc is in there.
I guest that mail is useful than xml-rpc or any uselessDB already
bundled with ruby.
RSS is another pretty good library, I hope it do not be blacked out
from the standard library too.
Does you get my point?
I'm now enough wisdom for say "take this out" but as Ruby user, I
think that a "small and modular" library, will make of ruby: "just
another interpreted lang". Even when ruby is now, a "swiss army knife"
The versatile and real world programming lang is transforming in a
potentially powerful lang.
Is that good?
Think about that...
···
Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
Is there a case for a "batteries included" distribution of Ruby that ships
with a larger set of gems, i.e. mail, nokogiri, (maybe?) activesupport, so
that you can get a more useful library in a single download/session at the
cost of download size and storage space, while allowing others to just
download the core ruby, and being able to grab that functionality from gems
when necessary?
···
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Many newb programmers (ruby users) value the lang by its standard
library. In countries like this, where internet is lucrative, use gem
is not a option, but, thats is not a problem. Many times, I told to
people (super developed countries people); for example "with ruby,
just like it, you can do that".
If that's your need, you may find Python useful: batteries included.
https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/stdlib.html#batteries-included
···
2014-12-09 12:36 GMT-03:00 Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu>:
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 8
Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
In reply to: Abinoam Jr.
>
> Dear Lazaro,
>
> I think this is the way Ruby will go from now on.
> Make Ruby standard library as small and as modular as possible.
>
> And I think it's great!
>
> You can choose just what you want!
>
> Look at this ticket for curses.
>
> Bug #8584: Remove curses - Ruby master - Ruby Issue Tracking System
>
> Lazaro, are you having any trouble installing gems?
> Could we help you?
>
> Best regards,
> Abinoam Jr.Many newb programmers (ruby users) value the lang by its standard
library. In countries like this, where internet is lucrative, use gem
is not a option, but, thats is not a problem. Many times, I told to
people (super developed countries people); for example "with ruby,
just like it, you can do that". And people ask "does I need to install
some gem" and the perfect answer is "no, just with ruby". And 4
persons become rubyst and beginner programmer.I wonder why mail's lib come out, and XML-rpc is in there.
I guest that mail is useful than xml-rpc or any uselessDB already
bundled with ruby.RSS is another pretty good library, I hope it do not be blacked out
from the standard library too.Does you get my point?
I'm now enough wisdom for say "take this out" but as Ruby user, I
think that a "small and modular" library, will make of ruby: "just
another interpreted lang". Even when ruby is now, a "swiss army knife"The versatile and real world programming lang is transforming in a
potentially powerful lang.Is that good?
Think about that...
--
Juanjo Conti
Mi primer novela ya se puede conseguir en:
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 10
In reply to: Juanjo Conti
If that's your need, you may find Python useful: batteries included.
10. Brief Tour of the Standard Library — Python 2.7.18 documentation
WUAK! Nooo thanks
I keep the red power forever
···
Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 12
In reply to: Bryce Kerley
>
> Many newb programmers (ruby users) value the lang by its standard
> library. In countries like this, where internet is lucrative, use gem
> is not a option, but, thats is not a problem. Many times, I told to
> people (super developed countries people); for example "with ruby,
> just like it, you can do that".Is there a case for a "batteries included" distribution of Ruby that ships
with a larger set of gems, i.e. mail, nokogiri, (maybe?) activesupport, so
that you can get a more useful library in a single download/session at the
cost of download size and storage space, while allowing others to just
download the core ruby, and being able to grab that functionality from gems
when necessary?
Yep, my "windowsist off-lines comrades" ask my to download
railsinstaller, their consider it a kind of batteries included pack.
My question was about the ruby philosophy, I was worried about the
future of standard library and as seed, it will be dismantled.
My question is answered and this thread is becoming a bit weird, lets
finish it here...
···
Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Hi Lázaro Armando,
Pretty good point you have brought.
But, I'm not completly understanding it. Could you clarify it to me?
If bandwidth is expensive, a modular Ruby would allow you to download
_only_ what want.
So it would be "cheaper". Wouldn't it?
But, perhaps the problem is about 24h conectivity.
Does the people have to download everything they can at once and them
"disconnect" to work off-line?
If so, I would understand why you prefer the "one download with all
bundled" way.
I remember when Ubuntu was released for the first time, they
distributed CDs for free.
Perhaps somebody could run some project to distribute all-in-one CDs
for places where bandwidth is expensive?
After installing from CD, people would have only to care about
updating the gems if necessary.
Would something like this help?
Best regards,
Abinoam Jr.
···
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 12
Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
In reply to: Bryce KerleyOn Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
>
> Many newb programmers (ruby users) value the lang by its standard
> library. In countries like this, where internet is lucrative, use gem
> is not a option, but, thats is not a problem. Many times, I told to
> people (super developed countries people); for example "with ruby,
> just like it, you can do that".Is there a case for a "batteries included" distribution of Ruby that ships
with a larger set of gems, i.e. mail, nokogiri, (maybe?) activesupport, so
that you can get a more useful library in a single download/session at the
cost of download size and storage space, while allowing others to just
download the core ruby, and being able to grab that functionality from gems
when necessary?Yep, my "windowsist off-lines comrades" ask my to download
railsinstaller, their consider it a kind of batteries included pack.My question was about the ruby philosophy, I was worried about the
future of standard library and as seed, it will be dismantled.My question is answered and this thread is becoming a bit weird, lets
finish it here...
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 14
In reply to: Abinoam Jr.
Hi Lázaro Armando,
Pretty good point you have brought.
But, I'm not completly understanding it. Could you clarify it to me?
Thats could be a solution, but the main problem is that many, a LOT of
person here, have NOT any kind of internet access. So, I must carry on
the repo and give it via USB pendrive. But that is not a solution,
because almost all thats persons; live in inners "provinces" inside
the country; an USB pendrive is expensive, so is not the kind of thing
that you send via postal service. I was trying to write a command for
gem, that ask for the gem via email, then, a program at my computer,
get that mail and send the gem to the person; but this also fail, some
gem are to big.
Any idea?
Can you tell me more about modular Rubies? How could I make a custom
modular ruby?
···
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014
If bandwidth is expensive, a modular Ruby would allow you to download
_only_ what want.
So it would be "cheaper". Wouldn't it?But, perhaps the problem is about 24h conectivity.
Does the people have to download everything they can at once and them
"disconnect" to work off-line?
If so, I would understand why you prefer the "one download with all
bundled" way.I remember when Ubuntu was released for the first time, they
distributed CDs for free.
Perhaps somebody could run some project to distribute all-in-one CDs
for places where bandwidth is expensive?
After installing from CD, people would have only to care about
updating the gems if necessary.Would something like this help?
Best regards,
Abinoam Jr.On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
> Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
> Mail number: 12
> Date: Tue, Dec 09, 2014
> In reply to: Bryce Kerley
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Many newb programmers (ruby users) value the lang by its standard
>> > library. In countries like this, where internet is lucrative, use gem
>> > is not a option, but, thats is not a problem. Many times, I told to
>> > people (super developed countries people); for example "with ruby,
>> > just like it, you can do that".
>>
>>
>> Is there a case for a "batteries included" distribution of Ruby that ships
>> with a larger set of gems, i.e. mail, nokogiri, (maybe?) activesupport, so
>> that you can get a more useful library in a single download/session at the
>> cost of download size and storage space, while allowing others to just
>> download the core ruby, and being able to grab that functionality from gems
>> when necessary?
>
> Yep, my "windowsist off-lines comrades" ask my to download
> railsinstaller, their consider it a kind of batteries included pack.
>
> My question was about the ruby philosophy, I was worried about the
> future of standard library and as seed, it will be dismantled.
>
> My question is answered and this thread is becoming a bit weird, lets
> finish it here...
>
The brisk version is building and installing ruby, install whichever gems you need, and compressing and sharing the Ruby directory tree. Depending on how Ruby depends on other libraries in the system, there may be other things you have to or want to distribute. I believe [citation needed] most gems have licenses that allow repackaging and redistribution.
Thanks for bringing these issues to the list! It’s difficult for me to anticipate and understand how Ruby gets used around the world, and I’ll definitely think about these problems when distributing things for the community.
···
On Dec 10, 2014, at 09:27, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Can you tell me more about modular Rubies? How could I make a custom
modular ruby?
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby" Mail number: 16 Date: Wed, Dec
10, 2014 In reply to: Bryce Kerley
> Can you tell me more about modular Rubies? How could I make a
> custom modular ruby?The brisk version is building and installing ruby, install whichever
gems you need, and compressing and sharing the Ruby directory tree.
Depending on how Ruby depends on other libraries in the system,
there may be other things you have to or want to distribute. I
believe [citation needed] most gems have licenses that allow
repackaging and redistribution.Thanks for bringing these issues to the list! It’s difficult for me
to anticipate and understand how Ruby gets used around the world,
and I’ll definitely think about these problems when distributing
things for the community.
A off-line comrade told me that RVM would be a good solution, but the
off-line process is no enough good (in his opinion)
Would be great have a good RVM off-line support; then, a good gem set
solve the problem...
With a package "all in one with batteries included" that could be a
solution for my country.
···
On Dec 10, 2014, at 09:27, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Some gems require compilation and can not be simply "shared" across systems, unless the systems have the same ABI and architecture. Even then, if the gems depend on external libraries, different versions of those libraries could cause strange and hard to debug problems, if they work at all.
Regards,
Ammar
···
On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Bryce Kerley <bkerley@brycekerley.net> wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 09:27, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
The brisk version is building and installing ruby, install whichever gems you need, and compressing and sharing the Ruby directory tree.
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby"
Mail number: 17
In reply to: Ammar Ali
>
>
> The brisk version is building and installing ruby, install whichever gems you need, and compressing and sharing the Ruby directory tree.Some gems require compilation and can not be simply "shared" across systems, unless the systems have the same ABI and architecture. Even then, if the gems depend on external libraries, different versions of those libraries could cause strange and hard to debug problems, if they work at all.
Regards,
Ammar
the fact is share the gem as .gem file, no as installed gem
···
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Bryce Kerley <bkerley@brycekerley.net> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 09:27, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
The issue you're having though has nothing to do with RVM. This is solely a
ruby issue. All our VM does is installed the physical ruby itself, either
in binary format or the building from source which is controlled by a
makefile either stripping with ruby or created using config. Do not
conflate the two.
···
On Dec 10, 2014 10:14 AM, "Lázaro Armando" <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
Thread name: "Re: mail library in ruby" Mail number: 16 Date: Wed, Dec
10, 2014 In reply to: Bryce Kerley
>
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 09:27, Lázaro Armando <lazaro@hcg.sld.cu> wrote:
> > Can you tell me more about modular Rubies? How could I make a
> > custom modular ruby?
>
> The brisk version is building and installing ruby, install whichever
> gems you need, and compressing and sharing the Ruby directory tree.
> Depending on how Ruby depends on other libraries in the system,
> there may be other things you have to or want to distribute. I
> believe [citation needed] most gems have licenses that allow
> repackaging and redistribution.
>
> Thanks for bringing these issues to the list! It’s difficult for me
> to anticipate and understand how Ruby gets used around the world,
> and I’ll definitely think about these problems when distributing
> things for the community.A off-line comrade told me that RVM would be a good solution, but the
off-line process is no enough good (in his opinion)Would be great have a good RVM off-line support; then, a good gem set
solve the problem...With a package "all in one with batteries included" that could be a
solution for my country.