similar to: Can I add a singleton action to @controller in a test?

I''m getting a syntax error when rendering a partial. This is a simple html partial with one instance variable inside it. Rendering as a "template" instead of as a partial works just fine. The error occurs 3 lines after the last line of HTML code in the partial. There is no line 72! Here is the error: SyntaxError in Building_blocks#preview Showing

Does anyone find them useful? I can see them being good in some cases, but I have many exceptions that occur because of expired sessions. I am also not sure if they are really required for pages that require a login to access. The other place that they cause issues is in javascript requests. I am not using the built-in helpers, and all the javascript exists in separate js files. There is ways

Hi all how can I implement the singleton patter in RoR? thanks -- 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this

Hello all. I''m writing my own object using prototype and I wonder how you write and call only one instance of class. Can anyone share his idea of singleton? thanks Gregor ---------------------------------------------------- Gdy nadchodzi przełomowy moment w historii, musisz zdecydować, po czyjej stronie będziesz. "X-Men: Ostatni bastion" - w kinach od 26 maja.

Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same process causes an assertion. If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to get the process's ExecutionEngine instance? This would, among other things, allow "lli" to execute bitcode that itself uses the ExecutionEngine.

Hi all, I know it may not have much sense thinking about a Singleton Pattern in an R application which doesn't use any OOP facilities, however I'm curious to know if anybody faced the same issue. I've been googling but using "singleton pattern" as a key word leads to typical OOP languages like Java or C++ among others. So my problem is that I'd like to ensure some very

On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > Right now, on X86, creating multiple ExecutionEngines in the same > process causes an assertion. > Yes. This is by design. > If it's supposed to always be a singleton, should there be a way to > get the process's ExecutionEngine instance? > I can't see why. You could make a server to process llvm code. >

Hello there, I need a Worker Class to be Singleton-like, that means there must be at maximum one Instance at a time. When a new Request is made to create another worker of this type, it should return and wait for the other instance to be destroyed. what i need to do: i have a worker who needs to do sth with java and openoffice, and it seems when i have more tha one worker simultaneously,

Hi, Sometimes I am getting "Stack level too deep" exception. I have know no idea on when I am getting and why I am getting. Please give your suggestions. Thanks in advance... -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.

I wrote a plugin [1] a while ago that lets me do validations on a single AR instance. Instead of defining validations in an AR class, I can define them on a AR instance''s singleton class: class << @video validates_presence_of :title end One of my specs mocks Video.find, and the above code is run on the mock object. When I run the spec, I get the expected undefined method

Hello, I've this situation: 300+ simultaneous calls and dialplan like this: exten => _X.,1,Answer() exten => _X.,2,DEADAGI(check_status.php) exten => _X.,3,Dial(SIP/other/${NUMBER}) exten => _X.,4,Hangup exten => h,1,DEADAGI(cdr.php) When project is running , I had a lot of defunct php scripts (I've exceed mysql connection limits and so on, deadagi help a bit). The

Hey Andy > One easy pattern to follow is to register the option during pass initialization with all the convenient flags and parameters, but refer to a globally defined option storage that enforces the singleton and provides visibility. As long as pass initialization happens before parseCommandLine, usage should be consistent. > > Strawman: > > cl::optval<bool> MyOption; //

Hi everyone ! If I call ExecutionEngine::createJIT (or EngineBuilder::create) more than one time, the second time fails on a assertion "Multiple JIT resolvers?". It seems that the JIT is designed to be a singleton in the process, and I was wondering if it was something mandatory. How hard will it be to make it a non-singleton object ? Is this a JIT-only problem (work needed on JIT

An action handler (select_person_by_name) in my controller class assigns into session, and then does a redirect_to. I get the error "TypeError (singleton can''t be dumped):" followed by a stack trace that doesn''t cross my code. Google tells me this is ordinarily caused by assigning a singleton instance into session, but what I''m assigning is an ordinary String.

Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for pointing me in the right direction ! I'm not using the JIT in lazy mode, but it was fun to understand the lazy-stub code. Attached you will find a patch which follow your 1st option : a map Stub_address -> JITResolver instance, except that the used map is a "std::map" to apply the same upper_bound trick as in the map CallSiteToFunctionMap of the

In eager compilation mode, I don't know of anything that would go wrong with having multiple JITs in the process. However, in lazy compilation mode, we need to map stub addresses to the JIT that knows how to compile them. Right now, that's done by looking up the static "TheJITResolver" variable and assuming it's the only JIT, but we could 1) use a static

Thanks for the patch! I'll clean this up, convert your sample to a unit test, and commit it for 2.7. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jeffrey, > > Thanks for pointing me in the right direction ! > I'm not using the JIT in lazy mode, but it was fun to understand the > lazy-stub code. > > Attached you will

Thanks Jeffrey ! If possible, keep me inform (on revision number), I'm interested to see how you will do the unit test. (For my future patch... :) ). Thanks again. Olivier. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com>wrote: > Thanks for the patch! I'll clean this up, convert your sample to a > unit test, and commit it for 2.7. > > On Sun,

How can I safely mock a singleton without the mocked method living on outside the scope of the test method? I''ve run into this problem with mocking methods on globals (gasp!) in the past by doing something like def mock_my_global original = $my_global $my_global.expects(:foo).returns(''bar'') yield $my_global = original end Is there something similar I

Hi, it would be nice to be able to specify workers as singletons. By this I mean that every call to the new_worker method returns the same instance of said worker. This can be done transparently either by adding a new argument to new_worker (something like :singleton => true) or adding a new method, like I did in my installation of BackgrounDrb: def get_worker_by_class(klass)