thr3ads.net - Rails - multiple modules defining same method included into a class [Sep 2012]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

John Merlino

2012-Sep-18 01:04 UTC

multiple modules defining same method included into a class

In Ruby, classes are never closed: you can always add methods to an
existing class. This applies to the classes you write as well as the
standard, built-in classes. All you have to do is open up a class
definition for an existing class, and the new contents you specify
will be added to whatever''s there. In the same regard, if module is
used with the name of a pre-existing module that module is re-opened.
If a method is defined in a re-opened module with the same name as a
pre-existing method in the same module the old method is overwritten
with the new. And, of course, modules can be made immutable,
effectively preventing them from being reopened by freezing the module
object. Frozen modules raise RuntimeErrors when methods are defined,
or variables manipulated, in their context.

When you include a module in a class, without a prefix (prefix meaning
something like this: AbstractController::Layouts), then ruby searches
for the module of that name within the scope of the current module
wrapping the class that the include was called in.

So, for example:

module ActionController
  class Base
    include Rendering

Since we "include Rendering" within the scope of the Base class
object, ruby first looksup the constant Rendering, that is, looking
for a module named Rendering in the ActionController namespace, since
that is the namesapce that Base is defined in???

Well, ActionController module does define a module named Rendering:

module ActionController
  module Rendering
     def render(*args)
      raise ::AbstractController::DoubleRenderError if response_body
      super
      self.content_type ||= Mime[lookup_context.rendered_format].to_s
      response_body
    end


So now the method render(*args) is included in the Base class as an
instance method. So when we call, for example, (hypothetically)
ActionView::Base.new.render :action => "my_action", :layout =>
false,
ActionView::Base is instantiated and we invoke the render instance
method, and since no render method is declared in the Base class
context, ruby scope chain does lookup into the module Rendering and
finds the method so calls it. Now, as you may know, it''s possible to
pass multiple kinds of arguments to render, depending on whether you
want to render a template or a partial or file, etc. The * syntax does
the job here, allowing you vary the number of arguments passed. It
checks if there is already a response to the request, and raises an
Exception, if so. Otherwise, it calls super.

During this super call, I got a little confused. In
ActionController::Base, there is another module included called
AbstractController::Layouts. Layouts in turn includes a module called
Rendering. Since there is a Rendering module within the
AbstractController namespace, it is found, and it indeed contains a
method called render.

   def render(*args, &block)
      options = _normalize_render(*args, &block)
      self.response_body = render_to_body(options)
    end

And because render is included in Layouts, it''s included as an
instance method, and because Layouts was included in
ActionController::Base, that render method utlimately makes its way up
to the Base class. Now we have two modules
(ActionController::Rendering and AbstractController::Rendering that
are including this method into Base. So why doesn''t one of them get
overwritten? Why does the call to super work?






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

John Merlino

2012-Sep-18 04:39 UTC

head link

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

So it does appear that the ActionController::Rendering module does
include AbstractController::Rendering, which means a call to super in
the render method of  ActionController::Rendering will in turn call
the render method of  AbstractController::Rendering. What makes this
somewhat confusing is that ActionController::Rendering is included in
ActionController::Base, but  AbstractController::Rendering is included
in ActionController::Base as well. Yet  AbstractController::Rendering
is also included in ActionController::Rendering. Wouldn''t
AbstractController::Rendering being included
ActionController::Rendering and the fact that
ActionController::Rendering is included in ActionController::Base make
AbstractController::Rendering being included in ActionController::Base
redundant?

On Sep 17, 9:04 pm, John Merlino <stoici...-YDxpq3io04c@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> In Ruby, classes are never closed: you can always add methods to an
> existing class. This applies to the classes you write as well as the
> standard, built-in classes. All you have to do is open up a class
> definition for an existing class, and the new contents you specify
> will be added to whatever''s there. In the same regard, if module
is
> used with the name of a pre-existing module that module is re-opened.
> If a method is defined in a re-opened module with the same name as a
> pre-existing method in the same module the old method is overwritten
> with the new. And, of course, modules can be made immutable,
> effectively preventing them from being reopened by freezing the module
> object. Frozen modules raise RuntimeErrors when methods are defined,
> or variables manipulated, in their context.
>
> When you include a module in a class, without a prefix (prefix meaning
> something like this: AbstractController::Layouts), then ruby searches
> for the module of that name within the scope of the current module
> wrapping the class that the include was called in.
>
> So, for example:
>
> module ActionController
>   class Base
>     include Rendering
>
> Since we "include Rendering" within the scope of the Base class
> object, ruby first looksup the constant Rendering, that is, looking
> for a module named Rendering in the ActionController namespace, since
> that is the namesapce that Base is defined in???
>
> Well, ActionController module does define a module named Rendering:
>
> module ActionController
>   module Rendering
>      def render(*args)
>       raise ::AbstractController::DoubleRenderError if response_body
>       super
>       self.content_type ||= Mime[lookup_context.rendered_format].to_s
>       response_body
>     end
>
> So now the method render(*args) is included in the Base class as an
> instance method. So when we call, for example, (hypothetically)
> ActionView::Base.new.render :action => "my_action", :layout
=> false,
> ActionView::Base is instantiated and we invoke the render instance
> method, and since no render method is declared in the Base class
> context, ruby scope chain does lookup into the module Rendering and
> finds the method so calls it. Now, as you may know, it''s possible
to
> pass multiple kinds of arguments to render, depending on whether you
> want to render a template or a partial or file, etc. The * syntax does
> the job here, allowing you vary the number of arguments passed. It
> checks if there is already a response to the request, and raises an
> Exception, if so. Otherwise, it calls super.
>
> During this super call, I got a little confused. In
> ActionController::Base, there is another module included called
> AbstractController::Layouts. Layouts in turn includes a module called
> Rendering. Since there is a Rendering module within the
> AbstractController namespace, it is found, and it indeed contains a
> method called render.
>
>    def render(*args, &block)
>       options = _normalize_render(*args, &block)
>       self.response_body = render_to_body(options)
>     end
>
> And because render is included in Layouts, it''s included as an
> instance method, and because Layouts was included in
> ActionController::Base, that render method utlimately makes its way up
> to the Base class. Now we have two modules
> (ActionController::Rendering and AbstractController::Rendering that
> are including this method into Base. So why doesn''t one of them
get
> overwritten? Why does the call to super work?
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Matt Jones

2012-Sep-18 13:14 UTC

head link

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

On Monday, 17 September 2012 21:04:58 UTC-4, John Merlino
wrote:>
> In Ruby, classes are never closed: you can always add methods to an 
> existing class. This applies to the classes you write as well as the 
> standard, built-in classes. All you have to do is open up a class 
> definition for an existing class, and the new contents you specify 
> will be added to whatever''s there. In the same regard, if module
is
> used with the name of a pre-existing module that module is re-opened. 
> If a method is defined in a re-opened module with the same name as a 
> pre-existing method in the same module the old method is overwritten 
> with the new. And, of course, modules can be made immutable, 
> effectively preventing them from being reopened by freezing the module 
> object. Frozen modules raise RuntimeErrors when methods are defined, 
> or variables manipulated, in their context. 
>
> When you include a module in a class, without a prefix (prefix meaning 
> something like this: AbstractController::Layouts), then ruby searches 
> for the module of that name within the scope of the current module 
> wrapping the class that the include was called in. 
>
> So, for example: 
>
> module ActionController 
>   class Base 
>     include Rendering 
>
> Since we "include Rendering" within the scope of the Base class 
> object, ruby first looksup the constant Rendering, that is, looking 
> for a module named Rendering in the ActionController namespace, since 
> that is the namesapce that Base is defined in??? 
>
> Well, ActionController module does define a module named Rendering: 
>
> module ActionController 
>   module Rendering 
>      def render(*args) 
>       raise ::AbstractController::DoubleRenderError if response_body 
>       super 
>       self.content_type ||= Mime[lookup_context.rendered_format].to_s 
>       response_body 
>     end 
>
>
> So now the method render(*args) is included in the Base class as an 
> instance method. So when we call, for example, (hypothetically) 
> ActionView::Base.new.render :action => "my_action", :layout
=> false,
> ActionView::Base is instantiated and we invoke the render instance 
> method, and since no render method is declared in the Base class 
> context, ruby scope chain does lookup into the module Rendering and 
> finds the method so calls it. Now, as you may know, it''s possible
to
> pass multiple kinds of arguments to render, depending on whether you 
> want to render a template or a partial or file, etc. The * syntax does 
> the job here, allowing you vary the number of arguments passed. It 
> checks if there is already a response to the request, and raises an 
> Exception, if so. Otherwise, it calls super. 
>
> During this super call, I got a little confused. In 
> ActionController::Base, there is another module included called 
> AbstractController::Layouts. Layouts in turn includes a module called 
> Rendering. Since there is a Rendering module within the 
> AbstractController namespace, it is found, and it indeed contains a 
> method called render. 
>
>    def render(*args, &block) 
>       options = _normalize_render(*args, &block) 
>       self.response_body = render_to_body(options) 
>     end 
>
> And because render is included in Layouts, it''s included as an 
> instance method, and because Layouts was included in 
> ActionController::Base, that render method utlimately makes its way up 
> to the Base class. Now we have two modules 
> (ActionController::Rendering and AbstractController::Rendering that 
> are including this method into Base. So why doesn''t one of them
get
> overwritten? Why does the call to super work? 
>
>The modules aren''t "included" exactly - they''re just
added to the list of
ancestors (try ActionController::Base.ancestors for an eyeful) where 
methods are looked up. Modules included later in the source are
"higher" on
the list (similar to subclass methods vs. base class methods) and calling 
''super'' simply specifies that the *next* available method up
the chain
should be called. This works (as of recent Rails versions) for generated 
methods as well:

class SomeModel < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_many :wats

  def wats
    # calling ''super'' here hits the generated accessor from
has_many
  end
end

There''s one additional wrinkle for many of the modules in Rails itself
-
many of them are extended with ActiveSupport::Concern, which tidies a bunch 
of things up and (most relevant here) changes the semantics of "include 
SomeOtherModule". See this article for more:

http://opensoul.org/blog/archives/2011/02/07/concerning-activesupportconcern/

--Matt Jones     

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/B3FfuJtZ4KIJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

John Merlino

2012-Sep-19 17:26 UTC

head link

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

Yep:

1.9.3p0 :005 > module B
1.9.3p0 :006?>   def name
1.9.3p0 :007?>     puts ''b module''
1.9.3p0 :008?>     end
1.9.3p0 :009?>   end
 => nil
1.9.3p0 :010 > module C
1.9.3p0 :011?>   def name
1.9.3p0 :012?>     puts ''c module''
1.9.3p0 :013?>     end
1.9.3p0 :014?>   end
 => nil
1.9.3p0 :015 > class A
1.9.3p0 :016?>   include B
1.9.3p0 :017?>   include C
1.9.3p0 :018?>   end
 => A
1.9.3p0 :019 > A.new.name
c module
 => nil

On Sep 18, 9:14 am, Matt Jones
<al2o...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> On Monday, 17 September 2012 21:04:58 UTC-4, John Merlino wrote:
>
> > In Ruby, classes are never closed: you can always add methods to an
> > existing class. This applies to the classes you write as well as the
> > standard, built-in classes. All you have to do is open up a class
> > definition for an existing class, and the new contents you specify
> > will be added to whatever''s there. In the same regard, if
module is
> > used with the name of a pre-existing module that module is re-opened.
> > If a method is defined in a re-opened module with the same name as a
> > pre-existing method in the same module the old method is overwritten
> > with the new. And, of course, modules can be made immutable,
> > effectively preventing them from being reopened by freezing the module
> > object. Frozen modules raise RuntimeErrors when methods are defined,
> > or variables manipulated, in their context.
>
> > When you include a module in a class, without a prefix (prefix meaning
> > something like this: AbstractController::Layouts), then ruby searches
> > for the module of that name within the scope of the current module
> > wrapping the class that the include was called in.
>
> > So, for example:
>
> > module ActionController
> >   class Base
> >     include Rendering
>
> > Since we "include Rendering" within the scope of the Base
class
> > object, ruby first looksup the constant Rendering, that is, looking
> > for a module named Rendering in the ActionController namespace, since
> > that is the namesapce that Base is defined in???
>
> > Well, ActionController module does define a module named Rendering:
>
> > module ActionController
> >   module Rendering
> >      def render(*args)
> >       raise ::AbstractController::DoubleRenderError if response_body
> >       super
> >       self.content_type ||= Mime[lookup_context.rendered_format].to_s
> >       response_body
> >     end
>
> > So now the method render(*args) is included in the Base class as an
> > instance method. So when we call, for example, (hypothetically)
> > ActionView::Base.new.render :action => "my_action",
:layout => false,
> > ActionView::Base is instantiated and we invoke the render instance
> > method, and since no render method is declared in the Base class
> > context, ruby scope chain does lookup into the module Rendering and
> > finds the method so calls it. Now, as you may know, it''s
possible to
> > pass multiple kinds of arguments to render, depending on whether you
> > want to render a template or a partial or file, etc. The * syntax does
> > the job here, allowing you vary the number of arguments passed. It
> > checks if there is already a response to the request, and raises an
> > Exception, if so. Otherwise, it calls super.
>
> > During this super call, I got a little confused. In
> > ActionController::Base, there is another module included called
> > AbstractController::Layouts. Layouts in turn includes a module called
> > Rendering. Since there is a Rendering module within the
> > AbstractController namespace, it is found, and it indeed contains a
> > method called render.
>
> >    def render(*args, &block)
> >       options = _normalize_render(*args, &block)
> >       self.response_body = render_to_body(options)
> >     end
>
> > And because render is included in Layouts, it''s included as
an
> > instance method, and because Layouts was included in
> > ActionController::Base, that render method utlimately makes its way up
> > to the Base class. Now we have two modules
> > (ActionController::Rendering and AbstractController::Rendering that
> > are including this method into Base. So why doesn''t one of
them get
> > overwritten? Why does the call to super work?
>
> The modules aren''t "included" exactly - they''re
just added to the list of
> ancestors (try ActionController::Base.ancestors for an eyeful) where
> methods are looked up. Modules included later in the source are
"higher" on
> the list (similar to subclass methods vs. base class methods) and calling
> ''super'' simply specifies that the *next* available method
up the chain
> should be called. This works (as of recent Rails versions) for generated
> methods as well:
>
> class SomeModel < ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_many :wats
>
>   def wats
>     # calling ''super'' here hits the generated accessor
from has_many
>   end
> end
>
> There''s one additional wrinkle for many of the modules in Rails
itself -
> many of them are extended with ActiveSupport::Concern, which tidies a bunch
> of things up and (most relevant here) changes the semantics of
"include
> SomeOtherModule". See this article for more:
>
> http://opensoul.org/blog/archives/2011/02/07/concerning-activesupport...
>
> --Matt Jones
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

7stud --

2012-Sep-19 18:39 UTC

head link

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

>…looking for a module named Rendering in the ActionController
> namespace, since that is the namesapce that Base is defined in???
module Rendering
  def greet
    puts ''hi''
  end
end

module ActionController
  class Base
    include Rendering
  end
end


obj = ActionController::Base.new
obj.greet

--output:--
hi



module Rendering
  def greet
    puts ''hi''
  end
end

module ActionController
  module Rendering
    def greet
      puts ''bye''
    end
  end

  class Base
    include Rendering
  end
end


obj = ActionController::Base.new
obj.greet


--output:--
bye



module Rendering
  def greet
    puts ''hi''
  end
end

module ActionController
  module Rendering
    def greet
      puts ''bye''
    end
  end

  class Base
    include Rendering

    module Rendering
      def greet
        puts "It''s hot down here."
      end
    end
  end
end

obj = ActionController::Base.new
obj.greet


--output:--
bye



module Rendering
  def greet
    puts ''hi''
  end
end

module ActionController
  module Rendering
    def greet
      puts ''bye''
    end
  end

  class Base
    module Rendering
      def greet
        puts "It''s hot down here."
      end
    end

    include Rendering
  end
end


obj = ActionController::Base.new
obj.greet

--output:--
It''s hot down here.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

Rails - Sep 2012 - multiple modules defining same method included into a class

multiple modules defining same method included into a class

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

Re: multiple modules defining same method included into a class

Seemingly Similar Threads