I would almost say that the reactive framework provides a similar abstraction as eventmachine but a lot more refined. It's defintely an avenue worth exploring, but I do have some concerns with regards to that:
* It makes use of Expressions, LINQ and building those with IronRuby isn't going to as fun as writing plain ruby code. * It makes heavy use of generics which may also result in some pretty ugly ruby code. * Will it run on mono? For me this is of significant importance as most of my systems are either OSX, debian or ubuntu and I have 2 windows boxes. * Isn't this one of those libraries where you want to get as close to the metal as possible? I'm all for the latest and the greatest if it solves the problem better and easier than the alternative. The windows equivalent of a unix domain socket would probably be named pipes in passive mode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_pipe#Named_pipes_in_Windows The java implementation is not that large and I'm hoping that it is a good indication of the work that is involved. --- Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations Ivan Porto Carrero Blog: http://flanders.co.nz Google Wave: portocarrero.i...@googlewave.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/casualjim Author of IronRuby in Action (http://manning.com/carrero) On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Ryan Riley <ryan.ri...@panesofglass.org>wrote: > If I have time, which should be freeing up towards the end of the year, > then I would like to work on this. Should we leverage the Reactive > Extensions for this? It seems a good fit, and it would give us the ability > to more easily mimic sockets (if I understand sockets correctly). > > > Ryan Riley > > Email: ryan.ri...@panesofglass.org > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley > Blog: http://wizardsofsmart.net/ > Website: http://panesofglass.org/ > > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Ivan Porto Carrero > <i...@flanders.co.nz>wrote: > >> Anybody wanna join in getting eventmachine working on IronRuby? >> >> We can probably do 1 better than the C based implementation on windows >> simply because .NET has all the necessary classes and exposes the events we >> need. >> For example in the C-based version you can't use EM.popen on windows >> because they need a PID and a few events, which exist on the Process class >> in .NET. >> >> .NET has a cross platform FileSystemWatcher >> .NET has sockets with events >> .NET has events on a Process >> >> those are all we need AFAICT to get eventmachine working and also make >> EM.system and EM.popen work on windows that don't work currently. The only >> remaining issue on windows is then the unix sockets but we can do without >> those I guess. >> >> getting eventmachine to work brings us closer to or gives us >> Thin >> Blather >> AMQP >> Nanite >> .... >> >> And probably every 2nd library that uses the network and cares about not >> polling. >> I will still be busy for another month or so with the book but then I >> really want to get going with this. >> --- >> Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations >> Ivan Porto Carrero >> Blog: http://flanders.co.nz >> Google Wave: portocarrero.i...@googlewave.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/casualjim >> Author of IronRuby in Action (http://manning.com/carrero) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ironruby-core mailing list >> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
