On 10/22/07, MenTaLguY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > Last night I took a stab at implementing BasicObject; rewiring the > class bootstrap to include BasicObject took me about five minutes, > but I got stuck on how the method definitions themselves should be > handled. As far as I can tell, there are two options: > > 1. separate RubyObject into RubyBasicObject and RubyObject
I think this would be cleaner, but see note below. 2. use RubyObject for both Object and BasicObject, but use > separate metaclasses to get different method subsets on > each > > The first has the potential to be extremely intrusive, and I'm not > entirely sure I can do it cleanly. I think the second option is a > much better approach, but it's not evident to me how to do it with > annotations (which I don't think we want to abandon). Right now, RubyModule#defineAnnotatedMethods(Class clazz) will add all annotated methods for clazz to the metaclass. I suppose JRubyMethod could be tweaked to take a metaclass parameter, but I think that gets kind of ugly. But I would say do whatever takes the least effort right now, as this code will be refactored post-1.1 (2.0?) anyway, with one goal (IMO) being decoupling metaclass definition from data representation, especially around RubyObject. My two cents... -Bill
