Eventmachine talk - Oct 2007 - start_server block executed in the

>#post_init was originally invented because of protocol handlers that are
>...invented later.) I''m not proposing to eliminate #post_init, but
it''s
>probably a good idea to avoid it in new code.
Thoughts?

Maybe for now add a boolean "run block before post init or after" as a
way
to bypass the decision :) I''d also be down with my previous suggestion
(being able to pass a block which operates on the newly mixed-in class once,
then execute the ''normal'' block on every connection), but
I''m not sure if
that''s possible or if it would be efficient.
Just thinking out loud.
EM Rox.
-Roger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/eventmachine-talk/attachments/20071023/f9708275/attachment.html

On 10/23/07, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >#post_init was originally invented because of protocol handlers that
are
> >...invented later.) I''m not proposing to eliminate #post_init,
but it''s
> >probably a good idea to avoid it in new code.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Maybe for now add a boolean "run block before post init or after"
as a way
> to bypass the decision :) I''d also be down with my previous
suggestion
> (being able to pass a block which operates on the newly mixed-in class
once,
> then execute the ''normal'' block on every connection), but
I''m not sure if
> that''s possible or if it would be efficient.
> Just thinking out loud.


Can you suggest a syntax for how this would work, with the secondary block?

I don''t like the idea of a boolean flag because I''d rather
just make a
decision one way or the other :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/eventmachine-talk/attachments/20071023/f0055e05/attachment.html