[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Solaris door Ruby bindings

BDB

6/16/2007 6:23:00 AM

I'm writing a ruby extension in C to the Solaris door library. The
door library provides for fast IPC locally on Solaris.

I wonder if such a thing is of interest to you. If you are interested
(or not), I'd appreciate your input.

1. Right now, it looks like this:

## server process
require 'door'
class Door
def func(arg=0)
return arg**2
end
end

d = Door.new("/path/to/door", "func")


## client process
require 'door'
d = Door.new("/path/to/door")

answer = d.call(2) # => 4

Is it more convenient to say:
d = Door.new(:path => "/path/to/door", :proc => "func")
?

Which is more ruby-like?

Perhaps I can support both by checking the type of the first VALUE....

2. Is it OK to distribute this extension under a license other than
CDDL (this is the Solaris license), say GPL or whatnot? I'm just using
the API.

Since I used the code from ruby source (to implement, e.g.,
"File.new(path).door?"), I think I'll have to use GPL, which is
incompatible with CDDL, from what I read.

3. If there's enough interest, I would like to register the project
with Rubyforge under "door" or "ruby-door" or something. Can you think
of a better name?

--
H. Asari
2 Answers

Erwin Abbott

6/16/2007 8:08:00 AM

0

On 6/16/07, Banzai <noemail@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> d = Door.new("/path/to/door", "func")
> Is it more convenient to say:
> d = Door.new(:path => "/path/to/door", :proc => "func")

From my experience the most Ruby-like way of doing this would be
d = Door.new("/path/to/door") { |arg| arg ** 2 }

You can implement it like this

class Door
def initialize(path, &block)
# var named block is now a Proc object
@block = block
end
end

Regards,
- Erwin

BDB

6/17/2007 3:09:00 PM

0

On 2007-06-16 03:07:57 -0500, "Erwin Abbott" <erwin.abbott@gmail.com> said:

> On 6/16/07, Banzai <noemail@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> d = Door.new("/path/to/door", "func")
>> Is it more convenient to say:
>> d = Door.new(:path => "/path/to/door", :proc => "func")
>
> From my experience the most Ruby-like way of doing this would be
> d = Door.new("/path/to/door") { |arg| arg ** 2 }
>
> You can implement it like this
>
> class Door
> def initialize(path, &block)
> # var named block is now a Proc object
> @block = block
> end
> end
>
> Regards,
> - Erwin

Thank you for your input, Erwin.

Remember that my extension is written in C, so the implementation would
be a bit more involved. :-)

I do like the idea... But, I think Door should be a subclass of File,
and File doesn't like a code block for an argument, and I'll get this
warning:

warning: Door::new() does not take block; use Door::open() instead

This warning comes from rb_io_s_new() in io.c, so I don't think I can
suppress it if I say:

rb_define_class("Door", rb_cFile);

--
H. Asari