I would almost say that the reactive framework provides a similar
abstraction as eventmachine but a lot more refined. It''s defintely an
avenue
worth exploring, but I do have some concerns with regards to that:
* It makes use of Expressions, LINQ and building those with IronRuby
isn''t
going to as fun as writing plain ruby code.
* It makes heavy use of generics which may also result in some pretty ugly
ruby code.
* Will it run on mono? For me this is of significant importance as most of
my systems are either OSX, debian or ubuntu and I have 2 windows boxes.
* Isn''t this one of those libraries where you want to get as close to
the
metal as possible?
I''m all for the latest and the greatest if it solves the problem better
and
easier than the alternative.
The windows equivalent of a unix domain socket would probably be named pipes
in passive mode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_pipe#Named_pipes_in_Windows
The java implementation is not that large and I''m hoping that it is a
good
indication of the work that is involved.
---
Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations
Ivan Porto Carrero
Blog: http://flanders.co.nz
Google Wave: portocarrero.ivan at googlewave.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/casualjim
Author of IronRuby in Action (http://manning.com/carrero)
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Ryan Riley <ryan.riley at
panesofglass.org>wrote:
> If I have time, which should be freeing up towards the end of the year,
> then I would like to work on this. Should we leverage the Reactive
> Extensions for this? It seems a good fit, and it would give us the ability
> to more easily mimic sockets (if I understand sockets correctly).
>
>
> Ryan Riley
>
> Email: ryan.riley at panesofglass.org
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley
> Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/
> Website: http://panesofglass.org/
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Ivan Porto Carrero <ivan at
flanders.co.nz>wrote:
>
>> Anybody wanna join in getting eventmachine working on IronRuby?
>>
>> We can probably do 1 better than the C based implementation on windows
>> simply because .NET has all the necessary classes and exposes the
events we
>> need.
>> For example in the C-based version you can''t use EM.popen on
windows
>> because they need a PID and a few events, which exist on the Process
class
>> in .NET.
>>
>> .NET has a cross platform FileSystemWatcher
>> .NET has sockets with events
>> .NET has events on a Process
>>
>> those are all we need AFAICT to get eventmachine working and also make
>> EM.system and EM.popen work on windows that don''t work
currently. The only
>> remaining issue on windows is then the unix sockets but we can do
without
>> those I guess.
>>
>> getting eventmachine to work brings us closer to or gives us
>> Thin
>> Blather
>> AMQP
>> Nanite
>> ....
>>
>> And probably every 2nd library that uses the network and cares about
not
>> polling.
>> I will still be busy for another month or so with the book but then I
>> really want to get going with this.
>> ---
>> Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations
>> Ivan Porto Carrero
>> Blog: http://flanders.co.nz
>> Google Wave: portocarrero.ivan at googlewave.com
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/casualjim
>> Author of IronRuby in Action (http://manning.com/carrero)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20091124/7501b75b/attachment.html>