Solaris door Ruby bindings

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

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

···

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

Thank you for your input, Erwin.

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

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);

···

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

--
H. Asari