1 files changed, 106 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/libimagruby/README.md b/libimagruby/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2f761fb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libimagruby/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# imag-ruby
+
+A Ruby gem for scripting imag modules.
+
+## How does this work?
+
+Well, as we have some problems with lifetimes here, we have a fairly complex
+codebase in this crate.
+
+### The Problem
+
+The Problem is, that `libimagstore::store::FileLockEntry<'a>` has a lifetime. If
+we would wrap this object into a ruru wrapper and pass to the Ruby code, we
+couldn't guarantee anymore that the lifetime holds.
+
+The problem is simple, you see...
+
+### The solution?
+
+Never pass anything to the Ruby code.
+
+Yes, exactly. The Ruby code only sees 'handles'. It never actually gets the
+`Store` object either.
+We move the `Store` Object into a `Cache` object (actually, the Ruby code could
+have multiple `Store` objects to work with this way) and return a `StoreHandle`
+to the Ruby code (which is a UUID underneath).
+
+Also, the Ruby code never actually touches a `FileLockEntry` - it only gets a
+Handle for each `FileLockEntry` - which is a tuple of the `StoreHandle` and the
+`libimagstore::storeid::StoreId` for the Entry.
+
+Each operation on a `FileLockEntry` is then wrapped by this very library. Each
+time `FileLockEntry` is touched, this library fetches the appropriate `Store`
+object from the static `Cache`, then fetches the `FileLockEntry` object from it,
+does the operation and then drops the object (which implies that the actual
+`FileLockEntry` is `update()`d!).
+
+### The Hell?
+
+Yes, I know this is a lot of overhead. But what are we talking about here? This
+is Ruby code we're talking about here, so speed is not our concern.
+
+You could argue this is a hell of complexity introduced in this library and yes
+it is.
+If there are bugs (and I bet there are) they would be complex as hell.
+But that's it... if you have a better approach, please file a PR.
+
+## Tests?
+
+We have tests Ruby scripts in `./test`, they are not executed by travis-ci, as
+we need Ruby `2.3.0` for this and travis has `2.2.0` as latest version.
+But I hope we get it in travis soonish.
+
+## Ruby gem?
+
+This crate will contain both the Rust bindings for imag using `ruru` and a bunch
+of wrapper code for the actual `imag` gem.
+
+We are not there yet, though.
+
+### Why another layer of indirection?
+
+As "ruru" does not yet support modules (which is sad btw) we would end up with
+functions for all the things.
+
+E.G.: `imag_runtime_setup()` instead of `Imag::Runtime::setup()`
+
+I want to add a Ruby gem to wrap these things.
+
+So basically a piece of Ruby which uses `imag.rb` (the Rust gem) to build
+`imag` as a gem which then exports a fine module system.
+
+### Ideas for module system:
+
+```text
+Imag (Module)
+  Runtime (Class)
+  Store (Class)
+  Entry (Class)
+  EntryHeader (Class)
+  EntryContent (Class (inherits from String))
+  StoreId (Class)
+```
+
+I would name the types the same as in the Rust codebase, to avoid confusion.
+Only exception would be the `Entry` class, which would be a `FileLockEntry`
+underneath.
+
+If we adapt `libimagentrytag` and the other `libimagentry*`
+libraries, we would extend this type.
+
+## More plans
+
+I want to pull these libraries into the Ruby bindings:
+
+* libimagentryedit
+* libimagentryfilter
+* libimagentrylink
+* libimagentrylist
+* libimagentrymarkdown
+* libimagentrytag
+* libimagentryview
+
+Which all provide functions on top of `libimagstore::store::{FileLock,}Entry`,
+so we will implement them on `Imag::Entry`.
+