Add dummy file to allow bundler to require the gem correctly.

[seuros]

No description provided.

[brianmario]

Hey @seuros, thanks for the patch! I need to think on it a bit because we were planning on renaming the gem to just yajl but I/we haven't had time to actually make it happen.

@sferik what do you think about this vs the rename? I think I kinda prefer the rename over allowing it be required by it's current name. And I said "vs" because if we allow this and people start requiring it by this, we'll have to leave it in. May not be a bad thing though to make it JustWork with Bundler in either case.

[seuros]

@brianmario we won't have to leave the file if we rename it in the future. Since the renaming won't be silent upgrade, it the responsibility of the dev to rename any require pointing to old name.

[brianmario]

@seuros yeah that's true. Especially if it's just being done in the Gemfile. My concern is for apps that just include it deeper within the stack. Still probably fine.

[sferik]

@sferik what do you think about this vs the rename? I think I kinda prefer the rename over allowing it be required by it's current name. And I said "vs" because if we allow this and people start requiring it by this, we'll have to leave it in.

Agreed. IMHO, #128 is a cleaner solution to this problem.

I need to think on it a bit because we were planning on renaming the gem to just yajl but I/we haven't had time to actually make it happen.

What’s holding this up? Is there anything more I can do to make it happen faster?

@seuros Would renaming the gem be an acceptable solution to you?