# Initializing external Ruby libraries **URL:** \ **Category:** IronRuby\ **Created:** [February 14, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078 "2008-02-14T01:00:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/1 "2008-02-14T01:00:00Z")
For Ruby libraries such as sockets, openssl etc (ie not built-in classes or modules), I assume we will implement/port them using say C# to produce a managed dll (eg socket.dll). Client programs will then require ‘socket’, and IronRuby will load socket.dll rather than socket.so I note IronRuby already has the ability to load managed dlls such as mscorlib - but that appears to simply load the assembly and then presumably uses .NET reflection to expose the .NET classes as Ruby classes. But for managed dll such as socket.dll that has been specifically engineered as an IronRuby extension dll, I image the loading process would be a little different? CRuby, for example exposes an Init\_Foo function which explicitly calls define\_class, define\_method etc to explicitly register each of the Ruby classes implemented by that library (equivalent to what IronRuby does in LibrariesInitializer.LoadModules). Will there be a similar convention used by IronRuby? Possibly in static class constructors? Cheers, Wayne. ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:01am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/2 "2008-02-14T02:01:35Z")
I believe the library side of this mechanism is already in-place. Take a look at the \trunk\src\IronRuby.Libraries\Initializer.Generated.cs file which is automatically generated by the \trunk\src\IronRuby.Libraries\GenerateInitializers.cmd. The cmd file reflects on the compiled library file, reading the RubyClass, RubyMethod, etc. attributes and generates the initialize code you describe below. You can see this in action inside \trunk\src\ironruby\Runtime\Loader.cs : Ruby.Runtime.Loader.LoadStandardRubyLibraries(). What appears to be missing is the hosting side of things when you “require” one of these assemblies. There doesn’t seem to be any point in the assembly loading process that checks for a LibraryInitializer class and runs the LoadModules method. Is that what you meant? Pete From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Wayne K. Sent: Wednesday,13 February 13, 2008 23:59 To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: [Ironruby-core] Initializing external Ruby libraries For Ruby libraries such as sockets, openssl etc (ie not built-in classes or modules), I assume we will implement/port them using say C# to produce a managed dll (eg socket.dll). Client programs will then require ‘socket’, and IronRuby will load socket.dll rather than socket.so I note IronRuby already has the ability to load managed dlls such as mscorlib - but that appears to simply load the assembly and then presumably uses .NET reflection to expose the .NET classes as Ruby classes. But for managed dll such as socket.dll that has been specifically engineered as an IronRuby extension dll, I image the loading process would be a little different? CRuby, for example exposes an Init\_Foo function which explicitly calls define\_class, define\_method etc to explicitly register each of the Ruby classes implemented by that library (equivalent to what IronRuby does in LibrariesInitializer.LoadModules). Will there be a similar convention used by IronRuby? Possibly in static class constructors? Cheers, Wayne. ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/3 "2008-02-14T02:14:28Z")
Michael L.: > What do you see would be the advantage of something like this as > opposed to the current method of loading .NET assemblies? I mean you > could use something like [OpenSSL.NET](http://OpenSSL.NET) > ([http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/](http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/)) today to implement ssl in > IronRuby for example The main reason for implementing the libraries in C# would be for better performance. But if it’s just a thin wrapper on top of some .NET piece, there’s no reason you couldn’t implement it in Ruby code instead of C# - John ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/4 "2008-02-14T02:46:05Z")
* * * From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2008 11:01 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Initializing external Ruby libraries I believe the library side of this mechanism is already in-place. Take a look at the \trunk\src\IronRuby.Libraries\Initializer.Generated.cs file which is automatically generated by the \trunk\src\IronRuby.Libraries\GenerateInitializers.cmd. The cmd file reflects on the compiled library file, reading the RubyClass, RubyMethod, etc. attributes and generates the initialize code you describe below. You can see this in action inside \trunk\src\ironruby\Runtime\Loader.cs : Ruby.Runtime.Loader.LoadStandardRubyLibraries(). What appears to be missing is the hosting side of things when you “require” one of these assemblies. There doesn’t seem to be any point in the assembly loading process that checks for a LibraryInitializer class and runs the LoadModules method. Is that what you meant? Yes, exactly. Cheers, Wayne. ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:54am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/5 "2008-02-14T02:54:17Z")
Yes, my only point is that the way it works today a .NET class becomes a Ruby class and a .NET method becomes a Ruby method. Nothing is stopping one from writing a .NET assembly so that it “feels” like Ruby when it’s compiled. That said, I can see the advantage of being able to use the RubyClass and RubyMethod attributes outside of that… Is the performance between this and utilizing an Initializer that great? On Feb 13, 2008 8:13 PM, John M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > - John > > * * * > > Ironruby-core mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. [Polymath Programmer] [http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com](http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com) ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/6 "2008-02-14T03:00:09Z")
> I mean you could use something like [OpenSSL.NET](http://OpenSSL.NET) > ([http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/](http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/)) today to implement ssl > in IronRuby for example It’s not just about getting access to some implementation of OpenSSL, it about providing a set of Ruby classes and methods that exactly match those exposed by existing Ruby extension libraries used by CRuby. By explicitly calling define\_class, define\_method etc, you have better control over how your C# code is presented to the Ruby world. You can, for example, specify a Ruby base class that may not exist as a static .NET class. I’m not sure if this is actually an issue in practice. But then if there’s no need to call define\_class and define\_method explicitly for external libraries, then why do it for the built-in classes? Why not simply load an RubyExternalLibrary.dll? Is it for performance, for preciseness of interface or both? Cheers, Wayne. ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:03am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/7 "2008-02-14T02:03:55Z")
What do you see would be the advantage of something like this as opposed to the current method of loading .NET assemblies? I mean you could use something like [OpenSSL.NET](http://OpenSSL.NET) ([http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/](http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/)) today to implement ssl in IronRuby for example I believe a future goal is to actually support loading unmanaged extensions (this is based strictly on comments in the code, noone’s actually said this as far as I know). On Feb 13, 2008 6:58 PM, Wayne K. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > managed dll such as socket.dll that has been specifically engineered as an > > * * * > > Ironruby-core mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. [Polymath Programmer] [http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com](http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com) ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:01am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/8 "2008-02-14T03:01:19Z")
Michael L.: > Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting writing the library as a .rb file & using .NET interop features to call into the .NET code. Yeah, you couldn’t just write it in C# because we need the initializer to give proper Ruby method names & public/protected/private/instance/singleton metadata. It’s also a performance win because we don’t need to use reflection to pull out the metadata at runtime. - John ---
**Author:** ![Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/b5ac83/32.png) [@Wayne\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Wayne_K)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:18am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/initializing-external-ruby-libraries/129078/9 "2008-02-14T03:18:55Z")
I assume then we will be using the RubyLibrary, RubyClass, RubyMethod attributes, et al to implement that then? On Feb 13, 2008 9:00 PM, John M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > Is the performance between this and utilizing an Initializer that > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. [Polymath Programmer] [http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com](http://michaeldotnet.blogspot.com)