This seems reasonable to me but then I am not a seasoned Ruby Sockets user so I don't know what level of support developers would expect.
Certainly for a first release I don't see why we couldn't get away without Ruby Sockets support on Silverlight. I doubt anyone coding up a Silverlight Ruby app is going to worry that their code is portable to non-IronRuby platform. The big question is whether there are any libraries that require the Ruby Socket library that might be of use to people writing Silverlight apps. Pete -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lam (IRONRUBY) Sent: Wednesday,07 May 07, 2008 15:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: socket2 Peter Bacon Darwin: > The .NET Socket library is a fairly thin layer that sits on top of > WinSock. > Clearly Silverlight would not be able to do this since WinSock is not a > standard API on other OSes. Also, Silverlight is going to have > additional security restrictions that would prevent much of the Socket > library from work anyway. > > To be honest, even the full .NET Framework socket implementation does > not fully support all the features required by the Ruby socket library. > I have been struggling to get the Socket class working - it is not > pretty. Do you think it would be worthwhile to just have folks use the .NET Socket support in Silverlight and not bother having a "ruby" socket implementation? In this case I still have to figure out how to conditionally compile stuff against the same Initializer.Generated.cs - I might have to add a pre-build step to force its generation. Thanks, -John _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
