Hi all,
I’ve currently got a very flat code structure in a large code base
[1], and I’m looking at redoing the layout to make the functional
lines more obvious. This redesign will add an extra constant to
every class path; e.g., where I might have ‘Puppet::Type::User’ right
now, I’d have ‘Puppet::OSAL::Type::User’ in the new layout.
If possible, I’d like to avoid having to type full class paths every
time I talk about a class. I’ve noticed that Ruby behaves very
differently depending on how I define a class; for instance:
class One
class Two
end
end
will allow Two to use unqualified constants from One, but
class One::Two
end
will not. This is fine for shallow class paths, but it gets annoying
when every single class I define has to look like this:
module Puppet
module OSAL
class Type
class User
…
end
end
end
end
I’d much prefer to just write:
module Puppet::OSAL::Type::User
end
But if I do that, then I’ll always have to specify the full class
path. I have quite a few classes in Puppet, and having to include
the full wrappers for every constant in the class path would get very
painful, and I would have to be very conscious of load order (because
every class in Puppet::OSAL::Type would either have to specify type’s
parent class if there is one, or it would have to be loaded after
Puppet::OSAL::Type was loaded).
Are there semi-standard ways of making deep class paths more
convenient to use?
Thanks,
Luke
1 - http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet
–
Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all
respect for humanity. That’s how rich I want to be. --Rita Rudner
Luke K. | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Jan 17, 10:26 am, Luke K. [email protected] wrote, in part:
end
end
I’d much prefer to just write:
module Puppet::OSAL::Type::User
end
module Puppet; module OSAL; class Type
class User
…
end
end
That’s all I can think of.
Cheers,
Gavin
On Jan 16, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Luke K. wrote:
I’d much prefer to just write:
module Puppet::OSAL::Type::User
end
But if I do that, then I’ll always have to specify the full class
path.
Can you group all the constants in a module? Something like this:
module Puppet
module Constants
Constant1 = 42
Constant2 = Constant1 * 42
end
module OSAL
module Type
end
end
class OSAL::Type::User
include Constants # Now the constants can be used unqualified
puts Constant1
end
class OSAL::Type::User2
include Constants # Now the constants can be used unqualified
puts Constant2
end
end
Gary W.
On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
module OSAL
class OSAL::Type::User2
include Constants # Now the constants can be used unqualified
puts Constant2
end
end
Well, the constants in this case are all of the class constants, not
arbitrary constants like numbers. So, if I did this, I’d have to
stick a constant for each class into that Constants module.
–
Risk! Risk anything! Care no more for the opinions of others, for
those
voices. Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face
the truth. – Katherine Mansfield
Luke K. | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Luke K. wrote:
Well, the constants in this case are all of the class constants,
not arbitrary constants like numbers. So, if I did this, I’d have
to stick a constant for each class into that Constants module.
If each class has its own collection of constants, why aren’t you
putting the definitions right in the class? In your original post it
sounded like you were looking for a way to have several different
classes have ‘direct’ access to a common collection of constants
(i.e. without the need for explicit scoping).
Gary W.
On Jan 17, 2007, at 3:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
constants (i.e. without the need for explicit scoping).
Well, that’s kind of what I want, except that in this case the
constants are those associated with my classes and modules. E.g.,
the constants in question are ‘Puppet’ (which points to the Puppet
module) and Puppet::OSAL::Type (which points to the Type class in
Puppet::OSAL).
There’s probably a better way to talk about this, I suppose. What I
really want is to have access to all of the classes in Puppet without
having to specify quite so long a constant path everywhere and also
without having to have all of my classes wrapped in four or five
module/end statements.
–
If a dog jumps onto your lap it is because he is fond of you; but if a
cat does the same thing it is because your lap is warmer.
– Alfred North Whitehead
Luke K. | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Gavin S. wrote:
module Puppet; module OSAL; class Type
class User
…
end
end
That’s all I can think of.
This still requires a bunch of end statements:
module Puppet; module OSAL; class Type
class User
…
end
end; end; end
Not the worst, I guess, but it’d be nice if I could just manipulate
the constant lookup path or something.
–
The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.
– John F. Kennedy
Luke K. | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
Luke K. <luke madstop.com> writes:
and also
without having to have all of my classes wrapped in four or five
module/end statements.
Personally, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I would say it’s a good
idea to use
nesting to show, uh, how classes and modules are nested. In any case, it
only
happens once per file.