Some of the plugins I use are the documented .rb files (drop them into your plugin folder), while others are gems that require a more complicated setup procedure.
I think it would be worth documenting setup for both, and possibly the benefits of either approach. Is there an official preference on plugins as gems or .rb files?
There's not an existing standard. It's really up to how the plugin developer decides to package it.
Thanks @mattr-. I'll give a shot at adding a brief gem section to the plugins page when I get some spare time.
What do you think about adding a field in _config.yml (array) that would contain a list of gem names to be required on start-up? Obviously only in unsafe mode.
That's a great idea. Dropping plugins into the plugin folder encourages inlining dependencies, but is easy to use; the "_plugins/ext.rb" pattern is confusing to me, and only gets worse when you mix and match. Something like
is way better, and easy enough that it could be the default recommendation.
I like that this would let you switch which gems you're requiring by switching/cascading config files.
That is a great workflow! We have to support both at least for a while but this would be a cool feature for 1.3. @mattr- @benbalter let me know if you think that'd be a good idea.
(sans safe mode)
We now have gemified plugins! If you have time to write a quick tutorial (or screencast!), we'd be happy to publish it.