What would you all think of having the ability to require a given
Assembly?
I think this could be useful when compiling code in memory, in which
case
there isn’t a path to give Kernel.require.
If this is something we could all use, I’ll open a ticket for it.
-Charles
What’s the advantage to extending require?
Presumably you’re currently using the .NET Assembly.Load or
Assembly.LoadFrom methods to do this? (And if you’re compiling code in
memory, you’ll certainly be making heavy use of the .NET reflection
API’s already anyway)
Require is a standard part of core ruby, and is meant to take paths.
While it’s obvious to overload it to accept paths to dll’s as well as rb
files, overloading it to take non-path things (such as .NET assembly
objects) seems like it’s diverging a bit too far away from it’s normal
(ie: MRI ruby) use, and more into the realms of specific .NET
extensions…
Those are valid points. Perhaps #load_assembly could accept an
assembly reference.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Orion E. [email protected]
I’m looking through the MSDN docs for assembly loading, and it seems as
though you can either load an assembly from a path, or from a byte
array.
Both of these methods return an Assembly object.
There doesn’t appear to be any other way to actually get an Assembly
object
other than by loading it, as the constructor is protected (assembly is
abstract), and the only classes that I can see in the framework that
derive
from it are the internal RuntimeAssembly class (which is used for
everything
pretty much), and System.Reflection.Emit.AssemblyBuilder.
As far as I can infer, the only way to actual get an assembly object is
to
load the assembly, so if you’re asking how you can load an assembly
given an
Assembly object… it’s already loaded.
Am I missing something?
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Charles S. <
Orion,
Yes, I can use Assembly.LoadFrom to load an assembly from a path (and I
am
doing that), but that’s not all I want to do. I think the easiest way
to
communicate my intentions is to ask you the following question:
Q: What happens when I call Kernel.load_assembly in IronRuby, provided I
pass in some assembly name?
A: Modules are created that reflect the types and namespaces within the
assembly (::System::InteropServices, ::System::Reflection::Assembly,
etc).
That’s the effect I want. If I just use Assembly.LoadFrom, IronRuby
will
not treat that the same way as Kernel.load_assembly, nor should it.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I thought I had found a way to hack around this by getting to the
current
context with this little hack:
RubyContext within which it was created.
Object.context, Kernel.context, etc (which is a good thing).
there), I can do the following:
context = Object.GetType.get_members.find { |m| m.name == ‘Context’
}.get_value(Object, nil)
And then I figured I could do something like this:
context.loader.load_assembly(…)
… but the overload I need is marked private (the one that is public
expects a string containing the assembly’s name, as opposed to path). I
suppose I could use reflection again, but it wouldn’t work without full
trust. It was a cool idea, nonetheless.
-Charles
I’ll send you pull request on GitHub, if that will work.
-Charles
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Tomas M. <
I think it makes sense to add an overload for load_assembly that takes
Assembly object instead of name. Charles, feel free to submit a patch or
file a bug to trace the feature request and I’ll get to it soon.
Tomas
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles
Strahan
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Should Kernel.require accept Assembly
instances?
Orion,
Yes, I can use Assembly.LoadFrom to load an assembly from a path (and I
am doing that), but that’s not all I want to do. I think the easiest
way to communicate my intentions is to ask you the following question:
Q: What happens when I call Kernel.load_assembly in IronRuby, provided I
pass in some assembly name?
A: Modules are created that reflect the types and namespaces within the
assembly (::System::InteropServices, ::System::Reflection::Assembly,
etc).
That’s the effect I want. If I just use Assembly.LoadFrom, IronRuby
will not treat that the same way as Kernel.load_assembly, nor should it.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I thought I had found a way to hack around this by getting to the
current context with this little hack:
RubyContext within which it was created.
Object.context, Kernel.context, etc (which is a good thing).
there), I can do the following:
context = Object.GetType.get_members.find { |m| m.namehttp://m.name ==
‘Context’ }.get_value(Object, nil)
And then I figured I could do something like this:
context.loader.load_assembly(…)
… but the overload I need is marked private (the one that is public
expects a string containing the assembly’s name, as opposed to path). I
suppose I could use reflection again, but it wouldn’t work without full
trust. It was a cool idea, nonetheless.
-Charles
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Orion E.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
I’m looking through the MSDN docs for assembly loading, and it seems as
though you can either load an assembly from a path, or from a byte
array. Both of these methods return an Assembly object.
There doesn’t appear to be any other way to actually get an Assembly
object other than by loading it, as the constructor is protected
(assembly is abstract), and the only classes that I can see in the
framework that derive from it are the internal RuntimeAssembly class
(which is used for everything pretty much), and
System.Reflection.Emit.AssemblyBuilder.
As far as I can infer, the only way to actual get an assembly object is
to load the assembly, so if you’re asking how you can load an assembly
given an Assembly object… it’s already loaded.
Am I missing something?
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Charles S.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Those are valid points. Perhaps #load_assembly could accept an assembly
reference.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Orion E.
<[email protected]mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
What’s the advantage to extending require?
Presumably you’re currently using the .NET Assembly.Load or
Assembly.LoadFrom methods to do this? (And if you’re compiling code in
memory, you’ll certainly be making heavy use of the .NET reflection
API’s already anyway)
Require is a standard part of core ruby, and is meant to take paths.
While it’s obvious to overload it to accept paths to dll’s as well as rb
files, overloading it to take non-path things (such as .NET assembly
objects) seems like it’s diverging a bit too far away from it’s normal
(ie: MRI ruby) use, and more into the realms of specific .NET
extensions…
On 7/08/2010, at 10:08 AM, Charles S. wrote:
What would you all think of having the ability to require a given
Assembly? I think this could be useful when compiling code in memory,
in which case there isn’t a path to give Kernel.require.
If this is something we could all use, I’ll open a ticket for it.
-Charles
Ironruby-core mailing list
[email protected]mailto:[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Ironruby-core mailing list
[email protected]mailto:[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Ironruby-core mailing list
[email protected]mailto:[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Oh, I almost forgot; thanks for being so awesome, Tomas :). Ruby is an
absolute joy to program in, and having IronRuby means I don’t have to
choose
between .NET and Ruby - I get the best of both worlds. None of that
would
have been possible without your contributions and dedication to the
project.
In spite of Microsoft’s stance on the future of IronRuby, I hope we can
carry it forward as a stable, reliable implementation.
Thanks,
-Charles
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Tomas M. <
Yep! I could have sworn my initial proposition had “an instance of type
Assembly” somewhere in there. Not the clearest communication on my
part.
-Charles
Ahh, so you’re really after something that “brings in” an already loaded
assembly into IronRuby. Makes perfect sense now.
And thanks again to Tomas 
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Charles S. <
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs