I'll send you pull request on GitHub, if that will work.
-Charles
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Tomas Matousek <
tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Charles Strahan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:04 AM
> *To:* ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> *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:
>
> # ::Object is an instance of RubyClass, which holds a reference to the
> RubyContext within which it was created.
> # However, IronRuby hides the Context property, so you can't do
> Object.context, Kernel.context, etc (which is a good thing).
> # But, with a little reflection (and because I know Context really is
> 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
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Orion Edwards <orion.edwa...@gmail.com>
> 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 Strahan <
> charles.c.stra...@gmail.com> 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 Edwards <orion.edwa...@gmail.com> 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 Strahan 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
