Ruby Libraries ==> IronRuby

Tomas’s message below seems to reflect what I’ve been thinking lately.
Does
anyone else think that in many cases porting C libraries to Ruby or even
reusing ports from the Rubinius project would be beneficial to getting
more
libraries running on IronRuby? I’m supposing that IR performance will
continue to improve, and I like the idea of contributing to more than
one
project (or reusing someone else’s work). Is that a good idea? Should we
instead wait for FFI on IR? Or is all of this a case-by-case basis
approach?
I have nothing concrete in mind, atm, I’m just wondering “out loud.”

Cheers!

Ryan R.

Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley
Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/
Twitter: @panesofglass
Website: http://panesofglass.org/

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tomas M. <

For the rest of our ~10% missing Ruby built-in/library support, using
code from Rubinius could possibly make more things work. I’d try this
out for a library you care about that isn’t implemented, see if you can
get all the specs passing for that, and report back. =)

However, are you referring to “C-library ports to Ruby” that are outside
the Ruby stdlib (as in, 3rd party libs, gems, etc)? I don’t know of many
of those existing, but probably because I haven’t been looking, but
again if they do exist their doesn’t seem like anything wrong with
trying to get them working on IronRuby for more 3rd party library
support. The only issues I see is if they somehow use Rubinius only
features.

Another thing to be aware of is licensing; the IronRuby codebase is
partitioned into three licenses, based on where we got the code from:
Ms-Pl, Ruby license, and Creative Commons. If the intention is to commit
these Ruby libraries into IronRuby to fill out our support, then we just
need to be mindful of what license the incoming code.

~Jimmy

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan R.
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Ironruby-core] Ruby Libraries ==> IronRuby

Tomas’s message below seems to reflect what I’ve been thinking lately.
Does anyone else think that in many cases porting C libraries to Ruby or
even reusing ports from the Rubinius project would be beneficial to
getting more libraries running on IronRuby? I’m supposing that IR
performance will continue to improve, and I like the idea of
contributing to more than one project (or reusing someone else’s work).
Is that a good idea? Should we instead wait for FFI on IR? Or is all of
this a case-by-case basis approach? I have nothing concrete in mind,
atm, I’m just wondering “out loud.”

Cheers!

Ryan R.

Email: [email protected]mailto:[email protected]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley
Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/
Twitter: @panesofglass
Website: http://panesofglass.org/

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tomas M.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
BTW: Since parts of the OpenSSL library are already written in Ruby (see
ruby-1.8.6p368\lib\ruby\1.8\openssl directory) it might be easier to
write the rest in Ruby as well. With calls to .NET implementation of the
cryptographic algorithms, of course.
If you chose to go that way you can add the scripts to
Merlin\Main\Languages\Ruby\Libs.

Tomas

Correction: replace “Creative Commons” with CPL:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jimmy
Schementi
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Ruby Libraries ==> IronRuby

For the rest of our ~10% missing Ruby built-in/library support, using
code from Rubinius could possibly make more things work. I’d try this
out for a library you care about that isn’t implemented, see if you can
get all the specs passing for that, and report back. =)

However, are you referring to “C-library ports to Ruby” that are outside
the Ruby stdlib (as in, 3rd party libs, gems, etc)? I don’t know of many
of those existing, but probably because I haven’t been looking, but
again if they do exist their doesn’t seem like anything wrong with
trying to get them working on IronRuby for more 3rd party library
support. The only issues I see is if they somehow use Rubinius only
features.

Another thing to be aware of is licensing; the IronRuby codebase is
partitioned into three licenses, based on where we got the code from:
Ms-Pl, Ruby license, and Creative Commons. If the intention is to commit
these Ruby libraries into IronRuby to fill out our support, then we just
need to be mindful of what license the incoming code.

~Jimmy

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ryan R.
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Ironruby-core] Ruby Libraries ==> IronRuby

Tomas’s message below seems to reflect what I’ve been thinking lately.
Does anyone else think that in many cases porting C libraries to Ruby or
even reusing ports from the Rubinius project would be beneficial to
getting more libraries running on IronRuby? I’m supposing that IR
performance will continue to improve, and I like the idea of
contributing to more than one project (or reusing someone else’s work).
Is that a good idea? Should we instead wait for FFI on IR? Or is all of
this a case-by-case basis approach? I have nothing concrete in mind,
atm, I’m just wondering “out loud.”

Cheers!

Ryan R.

Email: [email protected]mailto:[email protected]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley
Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/
Twitter: @panesofglass
Website: http://panesofglass.org/
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tomas M.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
BTW: Since parts of the OpenSSL library are already written in Ruby (see
ruby-1.8.6p368\lib\ruby\1.8\openssl directory) it might be easier to
write the rest in Ruby as well. With calls to .NET implementation of the
cryptographic algorithms, of course.
If you chose to go that way you can add the scripts to
Merlin\Main\Languages\Ruby\Libs.

Tomas

About OpenSSL, IronPython already supports ssl
(http://www.python.org/doc/2.6/library/ssl.html) and that code could be
used as a starting point.

Not sure how much overlap there is between the two versions of SSL. Just
updating the mailing list after hearing about the IronPython version
recently…


From: [email protected]
[[email protected]] on behalf of Ryan R.
[[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Ironruby-core] Ruby Libraries ==> IronRuby

Tomas’s message below seems to reflect what I’ve been thinking lately.
Does anyone else think that in many cases porting C libraries to Ruby or
even reusing ports from the Rubinius project would be beneficial to
getting more libraries running on IronRuby? I’m supposing that IR
performance will continue to improve, and I like the idea of
contributing to more than one project (or reusing someone else’s work).
Is that a good idea? Should we instead wait for FFI on IR? Or is all of
this a case-by-case basis approach? I have nothing concrete in mind,
atm, I’m just wondering “out loud.”

Cheers!

Ryan R.

Email: [email protected]mailto:[email protected]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley
Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/
Twitter: @panesofglass
Website: http://panesofglass.org/

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tomas M.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
BTW: Since parts of the OpenSSL library are already written in Ruby (see
ruby-1.8.6p368\lib\ruby\1.8\openssl directory) it might be easier to
write the rest in Ruby as well. With calls to .NET implementation of the
cryptographic algorithms, of course.
If you chose to go that way you can add the scripts to
Merlin\Main\Languages\Ruby\Libs.

Tomas

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs